Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 3 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Misplaced Pages procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Misplaced Pages procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Misplaced Pages. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Misplaced Pages. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked this over, first, I don't see any outing happening. Please supply diffs showing outing, Ash, your's don't show outing. This looks like a content dispute over a set of links, and yes, there's incivility from both sides. I don't actually think we need admin involvment. Looks like a content dispute, looks like you may need a mediation or something a bit more.

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes} 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, I raised this notice for repeated accusations of bullying rather than being outed (the form of outing is a subtle one of claims of professional affiliations for with the guidance would be tricky to interpret, for example in this diff where there is an assumption of my professional affiliation). As described in WP:HA#NOT, unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. As Binarygal has constantly resorted to accusations over such an extended period rather than engaging in creating a consensus, it seems reasonable that this guidance applies.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no unfounded accusations, just as there is no 'outing', except in his mind. I couldn't be less interested in an argument. Please someone, do read the whole history and research this carefully. The determined edit campaign, and abusive treatment of me for resisting it and protecting the article's value, is self evident if you see the whole picture and understand the place of the open movement in the ITIL landscape. You should see why I feel like I am the subject of bullying. All I want is to be left in peace. BinaryGal BinaryGal (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I have been involved in some of the discussions regarding a couple of external links and whether they are appropriate - simply expressing my opinion taking on board the guidance at WP:EL. I disagree with User:KoshVorlon about this being just a content dispute - it has got well beyond that. User:Binarygal has repeatedly made accusations against User:Ash for which she has presented no evidence, at the same time claiming to be the victim of bullying, abuse, etc.. Anyone else who expresses an opinion that she doesn't like receives similar accusations, and the suggestion that they are not acting in good faith. Binarygal has repeatedly been advised to make her complaint at the appropriate venue rather than just repeating her demands that a 'senior editor'/'Misplaced Pages police officer' investigate on the article's talk page, but has failed to do so. It should be noted that while Binarygal claims to be 'a simple topic editor' who knows 'about the topic I edit', a look through the last two years of edits to the article itself shows no contributions from Binarygal other than reverting the removal of external links. Editors cannot be permitted to continue to make these accusations without presenting any evidence to back them up. The nasty dispute on the article's talk page may well be detracting from efforts to improve the article. I would suggest that (a) an uninvolved admin looks at the existing RFC on the talk page and closes it with a recommendation that whatever the outcome, it is respected by all editors for the next 6 months - the issue is whether an external link is included - it's a trivial matter, and it certainly doesn't justify the unpleasantness that has gone on, and (b) one or both editors be asked/forced to step away from the article, its talk page, and each other completely for the next 6 months or more - neither editor has made significant content contributions to the article in the last year, and there are other editors around who will revert vandalism, etc. Both editors may see this as harsh, but they would both be able to use their time more productively, and it would benefit the project as a whole. I would suggest that 'do nothing' would be the worst outcome of this discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation. Whilst those two, who know more about the mechanics of Misplaced Pages procedures than I do can round upon me, all I can do is ask for people here to investigate the truth. Please read the whole history. Please focus on what has actually happened.

You will very quickly see what is wrong: you will see that the edit is not a simple article quality edit, but part of a bigger drive to remove references to all of the ITIL Open movement. ITIL is very political, with large vested and commercial interests attempting to marginalize 'open'. I am sure senior Misplaced Pages people will be well aware of this sort of aspect.

Removing all the links to open movement websites only makes sense in this context. That is what has happened, until now, when the article is left with just a single open link. That link has been attacked multiple times by the same people. There is no consensus at all to remove it, despite the efforts of Ash, supported by Michig.

That is the context, that is the background, and that is the truth.

Michig refers to the link issue as trivial. If it is, why has there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive to remove it? Why would someone expend countless hours and words over months/years to drop a link which so clearly is of more value than most of the others on there, and without repeating the talk page, offers very useful content to article readers? The answer is because I am telling the truth.

Please read through the whole history spanning back years. I am not a nutcase with a conspiracy theory - this is how the market is and it explains what has happened here throughout.

As for the personal attacks, again, read the history. You will see that by defending this article I have been subjected to repeated bullying. Yes, bullying to a degree that colleagues have urged me to do something to stop it.

That isn't an extreme allegation. I have been very restrained and careful, and not accused either of the above with affiliations to anything, nor of anything else other than attempting to remove all the open links.

Is that wrong, when it is the truth? I don't think so. Please, please read for yourself.

Yet what I get back in return for doing this has been awful. The mechanics of Misplaced Pages have been repeatedly misused against me, I have been abused and I have been falsely accused... again and again and again.

Yes, I have been asking for an investigation for many months, on every page this has been discussed. I readily admit that I just edit and know less about the procedures here than they do, which is why maybe I have asked in the wrong places, but I would hope that somewhere someone might care enough about that article and the foul behaviour going on, step in and do the necessary research.

Maybe now someone will do it. I hope so. BinaryGal (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In would be very grateful if some could actually investigate this fully. It would then be abundantly clear that the major problem here is Binarygal. Look at the article's edit history. Several editors have removed the external links in compliance with WP:EL, only for Binarygal to repeatedly revert - this is why "there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive", but on her part to prevent their removal, by claiming that the link in question is so important and constantly playing the victim, making accusations of a conspiracy against 'the open community' (I thought we at WP were part of the open community), and accusing others of bullying. Comments such as "Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation" are typical of the innuendo and assumption of bad faith on her part. Go ahead, investigate away. If any of BG's claims are found to have substance, take action aginst the offenders. If BG is found to be at fault, please ensure that it stops. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. The "innuendo and bad faith" is clearly in the head of Michig, as my words were harmless. Why twist my words like that? In fact why come back with such comments at all when all I am asking for is a full and thorough investigation? Why try to discredit me like that?

And yes, the irony of Misplaced Pages procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic isn't lost upon me.

Please do look at those edits, and who made them. Please do look at ALL the edit history and talk page history. Also please consider the politics of the topic in question, and definitely the abuse I have had to suffer for defending the integrity of the article. This really has to stop now BinaryGal (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Binarygirl has above again claimed "Misplaced Pages procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic". There has been a difference of opinion regarding several external links for some time. User:Ash has raised several RFCs about these, which is a perfectly reasonable approach aimed at gaining consensus. One of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus. Differences of opinion are not a problem. Accusations that other editors are acting in bad faith, however, are. Please review the following edits by Binarygal:
  • 8 October 2009: "The reality of the ITIL arena has been bulldozed aside and hidden through these edits"
  • 4 November 2009: "The undemocratic raidroading removal of that link..."
  • 11 November 2009: "Perhaps one day the hierarchy of Misplaced Pages will investigate and see for themselves what has gone on and who has been involved."
  • 22 November 2009: "If it wasn't wrecking the article and so clearly political, it would be laughable". "I wonder what the thousands who have registered there think about what is happening here? I know what I think: I think that attempting to hide open ITIL from the public will not stop it from existing and flourishing, but it may bring further ridicule onto Misplaced Pages".
  • 23 November 2009: "Not that you are biased of course". "a desperate attempt to remove a valuable resource link, because it happens to be open"
  • 25 November 2009: "And we know from the ITIL Community abuse that this is isn't a democracy, but a political/commercial campaign."
  • 27 November 2009: "have been subjected to abuse and a constant string of allegations for my troubles"
  • 24 December 2009: "another effort to subvert democracy".
  • 28 December 2009: "simply more abusive behaviour, and bullying. An investigation is essential"
  • 28 December 2009: ":I have been systematically bullied in this manner and via abuse throughout by one editor, with another engaging from time to time."

So in summary, Binarygal has, over the past 3 months accused User:Ash of having an agenda against the open ITIL community, "undemocratic railroading removal" of links, "wrecking" the article and having political motives, a "political/commercial campaign", "abuse and a constant string of allegations", and has above accused another editor of also "engaging from time to time". I would invite Binarygal to specify who this other editor is and provide evidence for any of these claims.

She has directed towards me: "Not that you are biased of course".

These are serious claims. If evidence can be provided by Binarygal by reference to specific edits then they should certainly be investigated. If Binarygal is unable or unwilling to provide evidence for these claims or justification for these assumptions of bad faith, then she should be prevented from repeating them.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Several issues arise from those further false allegations:

"User:Ash .... one of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus." - Michig. I suggest looking at this more closely. It was not just ONE repeated effort to remove the link having failed, but months of repeated arguing, and yes, abuse. Repeating the effort again and again presents a pattern. Ditto repeating abuse over months, which I consider to be bullying.

Taking my comments out of context, as Michig has done, is frankly out of order too. Anyone can selectively take words out of context to wholly misrepresent them like that. I hope that someone will actually read them in context: in the context of the abuse I have been subjected to, and in the context of the repeated efforts to drive this edit through.

The genuine abusive phrases, rather than manufactured ones like those above, will be self evident. But I would much prefer an Administrator to actually look at the real evidence and read those pages than engage in fruitless argument here.

"Discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above" - Ash. Both were raised by Ash himself and got nowhere because there was no substance to them. Quoting ones own efforts as evidence is surely transparent.

The bottom line is there to be seen on the talk pages and other pages this has been dragged through. All I have done is to seek to prevent an edit which devalues the article on the topic I know a lot about. That is all. The repeated efforts, without consensus, using different methods is something I have never encountered, nor ever expected to.

I too want an end to it, but not at the expense of allowing the article to be edited such that there is absolutely no reference to a significant part of the ITIL landscape. I want the article to represent the reality, and to be accurate. That is all, and it is why I am in this situation. I am not the one who has been driving this, as the pages will confirm to anyone who reads them. It has to be ended. BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• What I can see is a lame content dispute (it's just a couple of external links), and a lot of tl;dr comments about it. Don't drag each other to AN/I, do some proper resolving of this content dispute. I can see nothing for an admin to do. What do you want me to do, ban BinaryGal for annoying you? Fences&Windows 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the content dispute itself is lame, however Binarygal's long term behaviour as discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above constitutes disruptive editing, particularly where this has had to effect of disrupting potential consensus in RfCs. I was advised in the last WQA to raise this matter by using ANI and WP:DDE also advises to go to ANI so I don't feel like the issue has been "dragged" to ANI unnecessarily. If the advice of the ANI is that no admin is interested in dealing with a deliberate pattern of unsubstantiated passive-aggressive accusations of personal attack then perhaps an RfC on the ITIL talk page about Binarygal's contributions might be in order? By the way, I'd guess "dr" stands for "drama" but what is "tl" shorthand for?—Ash (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a further discussion on the ITIL talk page is the last thing that's going to help. If nobody is prepared to take any action, the most helpful course of action would be for both User:Ash and User:Binarygal to voluntarily leave the article and its talk page alone and move on. You both have the opportunity to put an end to the whole issue by walking away from it, which is exactly what I intend to do.--Michig (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Fences & Windows here... this appears to be a dispute over an external link. There are many ways in which to deal with this matter, I don't believe that any of them need to be addressed on ANI. I would suggest that it continue to be discussed in an appropriate manner on the talk page of that article. Whether or not the link should be in the article I'm not sure, and though I could wade in here myself (I work for a software vendor that specializes in ITIL and I've passed ITILv2 and v3 foundation certs) I don't really feel the need to on ANI.

I should note that if uncivil behaviour is occuring, then it might be best to go to Mediation. But I would advise that all participants stop making flammatory comments, and focus on the topic matter. I would like to remind everyone on this page to assume good faith!

Should this fail, what do the parties wish for Misplaced Pages administrators to do? Protect the page, etc.? I'm not sure what they can do about a content dispute. If this is not about content, then I would suggest that matters be taken to the RFC page, etc. but only after mediation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now rereviewed the talk page of that article and I'm now rapidly reassessing my above comments. I am quite concerned now that the editor is getting disruptive - the conversation has devolved on this talk page with accusations of bias, political interference and vague conspiracy theories that editors here are trying to hide or stop the efforts of the Open ITIL movement. None of that is helpful to the discussion at hand, and in fact is causing a lot of hand waving. This is mostly coming from BinaryGal, the other participants have so far been fairly civil, except for once where I see that Ash got exasperated and called her a troll. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that despite the repeated efforts to remove all references to the open ITIL movement, consensus was never achieved. But attempts were repeated again and again. What can be done to stop that? Is there any mechanism available to stop someone simply going on and on like that indefinitely? BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that actually. There was a straw poll for one of the links which was open for a fortnight, and quite a few reasonable points were put forward, but you didn't recognize that consensus had been achieved. I think it worthwhile at this point to note that voting is considered bad form. I have also read through the other discussions, and the other contributors made some fairly valid points, none of which I believe you have adequately addressed. Could you also confirm for me whether you have any affiliation with the websites in question? If so, then you should not be adding them to the article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have no affiliation with it, and given the context I feel a little miffed that this is being asked. If it IS valid to ask about affiliation though, perhaps this is what should be asked of others.

Please understand that this is a very political topic. There are significant commercial and vested interest groups, which oppose an open movement in ITIL.

If you look at the situation from this perspective... given the scale of the dispute when we are only talking about a single link... and given that links to trivial websites on the same page are NOT disputed.... maybe you can see more clearly why I am so concerned?

Can you see that, the political aspect? Can you see why that could be perceived as explaining a lot of what has happened?

Perhaps you can also see that recognizing the existance the open movement is important to the quality of the article, and thus why this last remaining reference is important. All the other references have been edited out over the months!!!

This is core to understanding the context. BinaryGal (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would though also like to come back to the issue of an edit being repeated again and again, when consensus or adequate support is never reached. My question was - what can be done to stop that happening? Is there any mechanism available to stop someone simply going on and on like that indefinitely, as in this case? Is there a way to draw a line and stop month after month of effort to drive through a change? Or is it just allowed to go on for ever? Is there a procedure or something similar in place? BinaryGal (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reasonable question, thank you for confirming that you are not affiliated with this site. I do ask how you know how many users the site has though, given that it's not readily evident on the site itself? However, This is now a content dispute, it is not appropriate to continue discussing this here. I would strongly advise ceasing accusations of political attacks and only discuss the site itself. As for the dispute escalating... well, I think your editing practices have not helped. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

The above discussion has devolved to the content dispute itself. However, having reviewed the talk page, I agree that this editor is getting pretty disruptive. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If disruptive is protecting the integrity of an article, you can call me that. I call disruptive refusing to cease attempts to remove a link when no consensus or agreement has been reached, month after month after months. I call disruptive the throwing of abuse at the person who is simply defending the article. What do you call the never ceasing drive by an editor to remove every link to an open movement? Is that ok?

I note too that you have unilaterally deleted the link. Why? Have you even read ALL the material? On what basis have you removed the last reference to the substantial open movement in ITIL? The lack of reference makes the article much much weaker, especially as so many people know that it exists and support it. Is that what you seek? That is what you have done.

I never did get my full objective investigation. Rather, one person jumped in to this and supported the guy entrenched in Misplaced Pages procedure, ignoring the lack of consenus and the actual reality of the topic.

I have found the whole experience to be absolutely sickening, everything from the sanctioned bullying to the vested/political interests on the ITIL topic. I have also been exposed to some pretty nasty characters to be honest, hiding behind keyboards. Misplaced Pages is not what I thought it was. Well, at least this Wiki isn't. I suspect that the founders would be pretty disappointed too.

BTW there is no need to ban me for telling the truth. I will ban myself and never edit again. BinaryGal (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, this looks like a case where the person who may well be in the right made a mistake by hunkering down in a controversial area (or one involving strong vested interests) without fully appreciating the opposition's strength. I would ask that someone seriously look at BinaryGal's accusations in detail. It looks like my timing might be rather poor (to say the least), but I was about to involve myself.Julzes (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Every route I took here was blocked. I admitted I know little about Misplaced Pages protocols, but I do know about ITIL. The problem is that protocols are more important here than being right, and being dedicated to an accurate article. They are more important than articles.

People who know them can use them to beat down honest topic editors. Sure, they will beat up on me for saying that, but it is the truth a lot of people her will not face.

Even on this very page I was asked if I was affiliated to that website. The answer was no. But why wasn't Ash ever asked about his affiliations? Why wasn't he asked why he changed his name when his affiliations were even indirectly on the radar? Why is that? Why?

Why was the link to the last open movement website even selected for the onslaught, when all sorts of nonsense was linked to?

Why is the article itself a broad sales pitch for ITIL, rather than a detailed description of what it is? Why have all the people who have raised this previously been ignored or marginalized? Look at the history if you don't believe me.

Vested interests? Look at the ITIL landscape and look out there at the groups who try to marginalize free information, to protect the almost cartel like structure that is in place. Paid licenses to offer training, expensive user groups (rather than open groups), licensed sellers of material, and so much more. Anything that opposes this setup is pursued, and yes, ironically on here too. And Misplaced Pages has allowed it to happen, depsite my cries for help over many months.

I am sick of it. Misplaced Pages will get the article it deserves: in fact it has the article it deserves. The vested interests will be laughing their socks off. Congratulations (not you Julzes, but to everyone who has walked by and allowed this abuse to occur). BinaryGal (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should be improved (I also have a good deal of knowledge about ITIL), and I urge you to try to make it better. But Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox or a place to push your point of view. By all means add material about the Open ITIL movement (personally, I've never heard of it, but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!). I also suggest that it might be worthwhile reviewing the best way of editing Misplaced Pages, because you seem to have leapt in feet first without understanding how to contribute to the website. A good place to start might be Misplaced Pages:Your first article, though as you have been editing now for a bit and you have the hang of the editing process, you might want to also peruse Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. In particular, I suggest reading Misplaced Pages:Civility, because I am not seeing much of it from you at the moment! Civility involves a certain restraint in the comments you make, certainly it means you should immediately cease rants that involve paranoid conspiracy theories! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Julzes' comment above, as Tbsdy found in reviewing the detail, Binarygal has never supplied any supporting evidence for the accusations of a conspiracy or claims of vested interests by other editors. Where anonymous SPAs have been used in a doubtful manner (and some of these accounts later blocked) these have been in support of the link in question rather than against. Binarygal's accusations date back to April 2009 but she/he has never been minded to use the dispute resolution process despite this being spelt out by several other editors during that period. I am happy to support any investigation though as Binarygal has decided to cease contributing to Misplaced Pages and is unlikely to make any further accusations, this may seem a bit pointless. As for being part of a determined "opposition", I am in favour of implementing the guidelines of WP:ELNO and as my article contribution history shows, ITIL or related articles do not make it into my top 10 most edited articles.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you stopped re-writing history yet and covering tracks? Instead of selling the myth, why not invite people to read ALL of the history of that talk page for themselves? They might just uncover the game.

No, an investigation into you and others is NOT pointless. Perhaps it might reveal answers to questions like the ones I posed earlier:

Even on this very page I was asked if I was affiliated to that website. The answer was no. But why wasn't Ash ever asked about his affiliations? Why wasn't he asked why he changed his name when his affiliations were even indirectly on the radar? Why is that? Why?

Why was the link to the last open movement website even selected for the onslaught, when all sorts of nonsense was linked to?

Why is the article itself a broad sales pitch for ITIL, rather than a detailed description of what it is? Why have all the people who have raised this previously been ignored or marginalized? Look at the history if you don't believe me.

Vested interests? Look at the ITIL landscape and look out there at the groups who try to marginalize free information, to protect the almost cartel like structure that is in place. Paid licenses to offer training, expensive user groups (rather than open groups), licensed sellers of material, and so much more. Anything that opposes this setup is pursued, and yes, ironically on here too. And Misplaced Pages has allowed it to happen, depsite my cries for help over many months.

Misplaced Pages has been seriously abused in a manner which required industry knowledge to uncover. Unfortunately, uncovering it was not enough. I was subjected to an onslaught using protocols of which I am unfamiliar, using outright abuse, and using attrition over many months.

That familiarity with protocol is a key, because it attracts support of people who are relatively ignorant of the topic in question, and too lazy to open their minds and research.

It is clearly a major weakness within Misplaced Pages itself, enabling articles to be hijacked by the likes of the vested interests to which I refer.

The article will remain skewed, not even describing ITIL, but selling it and marginizing free ITIL and Open ITIL. This is absolutely clear.

It is an insult to the very principles upon which Misplaced Pages was formed. Those engaging in it appal me, but have been given a free hand to continue. It is why I will never edit another article.

As I have stated on the article talk page, in the long run the truth has a habit of emerging. If and when it does, I hope that those admins passing by, and buying the lies that I am a conspiracy nutcase, realize that they share some blame in allowing the abuse to succeed and the abusers to profit. BinaryGal (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them , while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times . There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europe. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic -

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europe and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgia will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europe were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage . I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann . Izzedine's response? . Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics has been undone by five different editors since May. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far . - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time , repeating the same line over and over again . It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And he's edit warring over other issues as well: I count seven reverts in Muntadhar al-Zaidi from Dec 14 to Dec 24, no matter who had edited in between. - Ankimai (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing by Izzedine

While Google searching for information that might clarify a content dispute involving Izzedine, I accidentally came across a forum in which a user who identifies themselves as Izzedine on Misplaced Pages attempts to enlist other users to vote in his favor on talk pages and revert any change to his version of the article. Well, you can read it here but in a nutshell it seems he is trying to defend his Iraqi heritage and is POV driven (note: the forum has been edited to remove the evidence. The original can be seen here). Can this be handled by ANI?--Stinging Swarm 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I like how Google works both ways on help. Well, where else would this go? We're allowed to "note" that that exists but can't treat as what would be anything close to a reliable source. ...It's been awhile since I read the ArbCom ruling on defining such things, but I do remember that it was "more okay" in article work. Honestly, it's not like it drastically changes the situation, but that it makes any additional good faith all that much more of a challenge. Sigh.... like 5 days ago when this disappeared as stale Izze contacted me on my talk page in what was an encouraging tone... but given I was attempting to be equally encouraging in a reply, actually suggesting optimism if they felt they had materials to improve the article... sadly it seems that optimistic view died in less than 24 hours as that forum posting was on the 27th (talk page here the 26th). That would seem to be in contrast to my 'reminder that any admin is within his/her rights to block you without further notice' as a conclusion that the majority of civility ANIs reach. Also specifically said that ANI wasn't for content disputes which is why our replies had to be limited. Cont.

Give a final warning, imo. On anything and everything on the topic. If the wholeheartedly refuse, do say they're subject to a block for disruption until the starting of the official DR process is taken, as I also suggested originally. After trying to be ridiculously fair and neutral in my evaluation, the "optimistic" Izze within that same day was apparently of the same mindset as before? *Sighs* ... Ignoring any kind of civility suggestions and refusal to admit to anything whatsoever (even things such as "edit warring", general concept, being shoved around by everyone at the time)? No desire to listen to a third party at ANI shows a continuation of a disruptive pattern of things started at the articles. ... gives low expectations for any future compliance. This is still way better than the last time I offered significant opinion to a edit warred Middle East article, though. ...Yeah, final warning to desist on pretty much everything, and that off-wiki promotion of disruption of on-wiki matters can at least subjectively be be read. Key point being the call to disruption here since that's what any block is meant to based upon ongoing types of. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has already suggested a topic ban for Izzedine's on-wiki behaviour. I think this off-wiki canvassing merits an indefinite topic ban if not an indefinite ban. He seems to be breaking all the rules of wikipedia - the canvassing on the forum reveals that he is indeed pushing a nationalist point of view. This was already evident when he started arguing that the terms Iraq (or Ancient Iraq) and Mesopotamia are synonymous on the two talk pages - something Dbachmann has described as "nonsense". Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sort of admin shortage, or do they just get Christmas to New Year off?--Stinging Swarm 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Admins have an off-Wiki life, & the holidays place especial demands on our time from SOs, family & friends. (For example, I spent most of yesterday helping my wife clean the house for our New Years' party.) Unfortunately, many troublemakers have fewer such demands on their time & can devote a lot more time to disrupting Misplaced Pages. Maybe the solution would be for the community to show less patience with problematic users at this time of year. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if Assyrian-Babylonian/Izzedine has deleted those forum posts in the meantime, but Google cache still has them, here. - Ankimai (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE ABOUT LINK: You have to scroll up the page to Assyrian-Babylonian's previous comments to see him self-identify as Izzedine. He has removed the identifications from his second posting (where Ankimai's link goes). (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, he must have read this page. It's now very hard to assume any kind of good faith on his part. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also hard to assume good faith when he characterizes me as a "Freemason" and Athenean as an "(anti-Iraqi) Greek" rather than just talking about "other editors". (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Seems like it wouldn't be possible to connect the editor definitively to this on line canvassing, and if it is not actually punishable then there appears little action needs to be taken. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Salam brothers and sisters, I am trying to defend our heritage on Misplaced Pages and I urgently need your support ahlan http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mesopotamia (I am lzzedine) Please help us ya ahlan, before they ban me, there are only two Iraqis on there, myself and Mussav, any support you can add will help, you can post there anonymously if you wish."

- I'd rather say it's impossible not to connect him. - Ankimai (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's quite clear that Izzedine and Assyrian-Babylonian are one and the same person. How else would A-B know that I was a Freemason unless he had read my Misplaced Pages profile before I removed personal information a couple of months ago? It's called soliciting meat puppets and every other case I've known of has resulted in either indefinite or year-long bans. (Taivo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

General responses to off-wiki canvassing can include:

• Heavy additional short-term watchlisting, either by involved editors e.g. a wikiproject or by uninvolved editors e.g. admins or a dedicated anti-vandal wikiproject.
• Temporary EditNotices, if necessary and more helpful than harmful.
• Semi-protection, if necessary.

If such off-wiki canvassing, either of this type or of the /b/-type disruption in a thread below, becomes too common it may be worthwhile asking for "transclusion" to be added to watchlists, so interested vandal fighters can "transclude" {{WP:Articles needing short-term watchlisting/List}} to their watchlists. The list would presumably be permanently-protected or in an admin-edit-only space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The evidence is absolutely damning. There is no doubt that Assyro-Babylonian is Izzedine. This is the very worst kind of disruption and for me this is the final straw. This editor is not here to help write an encyclopedia, he is here on a mission. IF nothing comes of this ANI posting, I will request a community ban. Congratulations to Stinging Swarm for finding this out and posting it. --Athenean (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Izzedine's gone quiet since the 28th, but this is clearly unacceptable. I've been keeping a somewhat loose eye upon his activities at Iraq, Mesopotamia and elsewhere and he's on a final warning. Any further disruption, no matter how slight, and I will block him for a couple of months. There is no reason why good contributors should have to waste their time over patent silliness. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, his MO is to lay low following a major dispute and/or rampage. He seems to have a knack for pulling back right before he is about to be blocked, which is why his block log is relatively small considering the amount of disruption he has caused. Laying low for a while also has the benefit of throwing admins off his scent, allowing him to resume his POV-pushing at a later date. However, this has the net effect of being EXTREMELY disruptive. Thus, I would go even further. At the next rampage, I will ask for a full community ban. This has been going on for almost a year now, and has GOT to stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good tactic, but it doesn't work with me, Athenean. I've had a lot of practice :) Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured. That's why I'm particularly glad to see you on this case. --Athenean (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This has fallen quiet for over 12 hours, so I'm going to say this is as good as it might get with things being watched in great detail and I'm inclined to agree to the "zero tolerance" views given above since this pattern is so incredibly long and established. At the very least, this a section break for anything needing to be added in the near future. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Izzedine hasn't edited since Dec 28th, as has already been noted, and the probable reason for this has been given. Moreschi is now on the lookout and has issued Izzedine with a warning on his talk page. There was no need for Datheisen to start a new subsection, so I've suppressed his header. The main point, alerting an administrator, has been achieved. This discussion probably can be closed now. Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan refactoring comments at sock puppet case

User:Betty Logan is the subject of a sock puppet case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty, filed by Beyond My Ken. She has been in the habit of refactoring statements posted by editors on this page, including ones by the filing party m whereupon he asked her to stop refactoring comments . She continued, moving one of mine , which was reverted by J.delanoy, which she reverted as vandalism here. When Beyond My Ken filed a comment regarding a post by the clerk that the user is probably a sock but since she is "behaving", a block may not be warranted, I posted a comment endorsing his statement that socking is, by defintion, disruptive. It was posted properly in endorsement of a comment. User:Betty Logan moved this comment out of sequence in the case here, to a section where I have posted comments regarding the case. I returned it to where I posted it, stating "please stop moving comments by other editors - this is directly related to the comment just before it and is where it needs to be". User:Betty Logan moved it again here, telling me where I can post on the case. I returned my comment to where I posted it and User:Betty Logan moved it again, stating oved Wildhartlivie's comments to appropriate section. 'Response to Clerk' is a section started by Ken in his section. Please restrict your comments to the appropriate section. I even posted a comment that I posted this comment where it was properly a response. This was followed up by a personal attack posting by User:Betty Logan, casting aspersions on my editing history and commenting on her perception of my edits as "I'm wondering exactly what his role is on Misplaced Pages besides arguing with other editors." I do not appreciate a user refactoring my comments according to how she thinks they should be posted, and I strenuously object to the movement of my comments from where they pertain. Besides this, she speciously posted various other editors' names with whom she had disputes to a sock puppet case involving me, which was dismissed as specious and unsupported, and filed a report here. I would appreciate something being done about this disruptive editor who spends more time refactoring the comments of others than to providing evidence in her own case. I want my comments returned to where they are pertinent to the sock case and her to stop refactoring. How is this behavior not disruptive? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this case and the other sock case that Betty Logan got involved in that she shouldn't have. What concerns me is that Betty Logan freely moves others comments without a thought of whether she should. The clerk at the case says that this is probably sock account but that if there is no disruptions well... Since when do sock accounts who are originally blocked and evading given good faith like this. Socking alone should be enough to return the user to their blocked status. If you read through the evidence on the case you will see the disruptions that this user has caused. I think the Betty Logan account needs to be blocked and she need to return to her other accounts and return to the project when her block expires. She shouldn't be allowed to evade a block or ban with a sock. Thanks for listening and happy New Year, --CrohnieGal 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for the duration of the SPI case which, per my comments at their talkpage is indefinite - since I don't know how long it will be. I also noted that any block review should include an undertaking not to make such edits again. I felt that a block was the only way to convey the seriousness of them editing other peoples comments on a page where they are being investigated for alleged sockpuppetry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike has unblocked Betty Logan since that editor has pledged to stop refactoring other people's comments. Woogee (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Xeugene and Pacifica Forum

This has come up before, but needs a closer look. Xeugene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account solely for editing the controversial article Pacifica Forum - he has no other edits, not even to Talk:Pacifica Forum or User talk:Xeugene. Today, he has repeatedly inserted the same content, an edit that adds unsourced disparagement of the Southern Poverty Law Center, falsifies the contents of an existing quote from a referenced newspaper article, and adds al large amount of unneeded whitespace in the article, causing the diff view to be nearly useless at detecting his actual content changes. He marks his edits as minor. I don't care to break 3RR (I am right at the limit, if others do not consider this blatant vandalism), so I would appreciate having others take a look at what's going on here. In my opinion, if others do consider this vandalism, or similarly unacceptable, it is simply time to block him. As I said, he has no edits outside this single page, and his current edits are an attempt at sophisticated deception. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a slow-moving edit war over this article between apparently pro- and anti- Pacifica editors. Each of these editors has inserted info that turns out to be a twisting of the facts presented in the refs provided. I've attempted to keep the article neutral. One of the editors warned the other about vandalism, but other than that, I don't think there has been much communication between the parties involved. Or with the parties, I might add. I did alert fellow members of WikiProject Oregon to the situation here. I'm not sure what admin action is needed--the edits have been easily corrected so far--though I haven't looked at the most recent edits (I have other stuff to do today). Whitespace and marking edits minor are newbie mistakes and I don't think these should be considered part of the editor's more worrisome actions. Katr67 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sophisticated deception, but they are certainly not interested in the Misplaced Pages model of consensual content building. Since they have not changed the content of their preferred additions to the text there is no need for them to remain within the editorship, at least for the time being. I suggest an initial lengthy block (1 week - 1 month?) will convince them that their disruption is not appreciated. If they return with the same edits then they can be indeffed as a disruptive SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Katr67, I agree with you about the long-term problem on that article (I have it watchlisted due to some previous noise on the article); my singling out one editor wasn't meant to imply that others are clean. It happens that this one editor is a problem right now, since they are explicitly falsifying the contents of sources. For the record, I do think there's a "sophisticated" element to the way they are repeatedly adding whitespace, but per WP:BEANS I really don't want to advertise the technical issue here. It is not the main point in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There was more activity on the article today. I again attempted to clean up the additions, which included adding info from a news report that wasn't factual but merely a discussion of the situation by the reporter. I can see that Xeugene is trying to prove some point about the way the group is perceived, but I'm having trouble figuring out what that is. In any case, I don't think the material adds to the understanding of the topic. I see that Xeugene has been informed of this discussion. It would be helpful if s/he would explain him/herself. The apparent conflict of interest is definitely a problem. Again, I haven't looked at the guidelines to see if Xeugene's actions are blockable (I don't think there's quite been a 3RR violation), but s/he certainly needs to take a step back and learn to discuss proposed changes with others. At the time of this post, Xeugene has still not posted on any talk pages. I get weary of editors who think they will eventually get their way through edit warring--it is indeed disruptive. Katr67 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a 24 hour block, and in the notice on their talkpage I have strongly urged the editor to talk to others before making edits. If they disregard the request, then I can only suggest asking for further sanctions until they get it - or get blocked for a long time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the editor continued to make the same type of edits without communicating or responding to communication, I have to think that's unavoidable, though I'm not confident that Xeugene will ever respond to outreach. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope the editor will get it. They're willing to make big/complicated edits to the page, so perhaps they'll be willing to make relatively easy edits to explain the edits. Thanks. (not blocking because I'm sort of involved now) tedder (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ermm.... NLT and COI?

Final warning given by Chillum. Durova 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Burd (talk · contribs): here and here. Reads like a legal threat to me. -FASTILY 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound so to me. He is not saying "take the pic down or I'll sue you." He is just saying he can provide evidence of copyright. > RUL3R_>vandalism 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very stern and final warning given to the user. He is saying "The previous comment is unwarranted slander, legal ramifications may apply."(in response to the comment "Unlikely uploader is copyright holder"). That is a threat, if the user continues it will result in a block. Chillum 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Joemama993

Joemama993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Back in August of 2009, I wrote to Joemama993 saying that radio station airstaff schedules like these were strictly not-allowed under WP:NOT#DIR. After several warnings Joemama993 was blocked for his actions. He came back and said he would only write schedules in prose, which is allowed. On January 1, 2010, he went back on his word. I warned him again, several times, and took it to AIV and was directed here. This is clearly a user who is violating WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Joemama993 of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this guy seems to edit on everything radio station related. There is no variety in his edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could we get some eyes on this situation, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I fail to see why there is a substantive difference between edits here to call one version "vandalism." If anything, Joemama's version is easier to read, while conveying more information. THF (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually missed that, it should have been completely stuck. In a subsequent edit, I removed the entire section from that page. That was a goof on my part. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas

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

Would an uninvolved, independent admin like to take a careful look at this user's overall edits, please? I get a strong sense that he is engaging in some kind of parody. While that can be amusing, the purpose doesn't overall seem to be to improve Misplaced Pages. I could of course be completely wrong about this. --TS 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting admins time. At least provide some diffs. --GoRight (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It has been suggest that my sarcasm is unhelpful, therefore I shall strike my comment. --GoRight (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very civil thing to say to Tony! However, Tony, why do you think he is doing what you say he is doing? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I ask for more admin opinion. Lar has arrived at an opinion, describing an enforcement request he filed as "frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering" , then blocked him briefly for "disrupting this process and wasting time." This user's conduct on the enforcement page, and elsewhere, seems to be ridiculously over-the-top, and there's a feeling that something funny is going on. His confrontational discussion style (see for instance talk:dog) is rather unusual even for a very new Wikipedian unused to our ways. I think the more admin eyes here the better. --TS 07:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours (before seeing this thread, for what it's worth). His editing over the past few days is unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just before that I left him a note. Hopefully he heads that advice when the block expires. Prodego 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the ridiculous behaviour on Dog, I really have to support MZMcBride's action. Either they are trying to prove a point, or there is something very odd and disruptive about this editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he's responded to you. Apparently there's something fishy about you . (Actually I think you're more Ta bu shi than fishy, but there you go.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, more eyes are needed with this user (and more generally, at Misplaced Pages:GS/CC and Misplaced Pages:GS/CC/RE) I felt a very short block was a good way to get the disruptive behavior to stop, and it did get a bit better, briefly. It may be helpful to realize that Noth already deleted some feedback from his talk page related to the edit warring on Dog thing, material which was present when I warned him. For reference: As always, I invite review of my actions, of course... ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I added a friendly note to the editor's talk page, but the editor has blanked it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this while blocked may indicate this editor will bear watching on his return. --John (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness! Definitely a problem editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"fetishist sexual gratification through abrasive formality and belittling tonality in discussion style and modalities"? WTF? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has now admitted that they have added the unblock template to their talk page six times. Would this not be grounds for page protection? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that there is something fishy. On his talk page he now claims to be a poor grandmother (initially elderly, later crossed out). A few hours earlier he made reference to off-wiki IRL coordination of his edits. The tortured style of his prose writing seems like an attempt at parody - it suggests a teenager, adept at sending text messages, trying his hand at writing like an older person, but failing hopelessly. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm torn between advocating a lock of the user's page (and requiring them to use the unblock mailing list for any further requests) and just watching in bemusement to see what they come up with next. But since it's not nice to laugh about the issues of others, that latter suggestion is probably not the right thing to do. A CU check (run by someone else) didn't turn anything up so I'm at a loss as to what exactly this users deal is. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sometimes people are just odd. *shrug* Contentious topic areas can attract people who hold unconventional views. There's nothing we can do about that, and we can hardly block someone for being a bit strange. If eccentricity produces disruption, that's a different story. Let's see how things develop when the block expires. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well ya. I mean, I build with LEGO and edit Misplaced Pages so who am I to talk? But did you actually walk the diffs on that talk page? Very odd. We shall see what happens after the block expires. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The user is now adding the {{helpme}} tag to her talk page instead of adding the unblock template. Their behaviour is getting more and more bizarre, which I suppose is fine so long as it doesn't get disruptive. However, adding the helpme tag to their talk page is clearly disruptive as that is not the point of that tag. However, to assume good faith I have added a note explaining what it is to be used for, and have told them not to readd it. I've now removed the tag from their talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He now appears to be using his talk page to solicit potential members to an off-wiki forum. This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages to me. --TS 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bourgeois provocation "communists should be crushed like worms" not being correct doctrine. Boris thinking user in need of expert medical attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree! But let's leave them alone, so long as they are only editing their own user talk page, they should be fine. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

WGB, about 2 days after gettng off a 7 day block for disruption, decided to start a second RFA; his behavior during and after the first one, not to rehash too much, was part of the reason for the block. This RFA was SNOW closed first by User:Nihonjoe, who WGB persuaded to reconsider, then a few minutes later by User:Anonymous Dissident. Incidentally, I and others who !voted in the RFA provided a fair number of links to WGB's past behavior, for anyone interested. After the second RFA was closed (both initially and finally), WGB proceeded to aggressively not get the point and, in my opinion, troll including suggesting that he lead a recreation of the entire process and continuing after being told that his behavior constituted disruption. I feel that another block for disruption is warranted, though his content contributions are by all accounts good and I would not to lose him permanently. -- Pakaran 08:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for whatever I did wrong. Please do not ban me. I apologize for whatever wrongs and horribly awful edits i apparently am making in wikipedia. Please do not ban me from wikipedia or from RFA or whatever. Please no non main space ban or restrictions. I have honest and honorable intentions and I only want to help. I am not trying to cause problems or to disrupt anything. I am sorry for whatever I did wrong. But I do not deserve to be unfairly banned or unfairly removed from non main space just because truth be told a few people have a grudge and a personal bias against me. This site needs to be above that. I promise I am trying to be a good editor and that includes the RFA pages. I am sincere and my edits are legit. I have not done anything wrong to get banned. Look at my edits and they are legit. Please don't pick on me like this and please don't put a really unfair and really ridiculous censor on me either. Please.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your appology seems honest, and I don't relly think it is necessary to go to as much as a topic ban. However you must acknowledge that nobody here has anything personal against you. This was just a huge misunderstanding between a lot of people and I hope it won't get in anybody's way. We all just need a big Wikihug. =) > RUL3R_>vandalism 12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, however I still think that you should take some kind of break from the project space... a ban, maybe not, but I hope you consider willingly keeping away from the project space for a little while. The Thing _{Happy New Year!} 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'd love to stay and keep discussing this, but it's nearly 5:30 in the morning here... I should be getting to bed.