Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 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
• 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

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

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

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball to reduce space/clutter here and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this section reaches the top of the noticeboard page. –MuZemike

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

User:MBisanz posted about this at WP:AN but it has fallen through the cracks there and, since the guidelines at WP:AN indicated this was the more appropriate venue, I'm raising it again here. In short, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name but, after the name change was implemented, he re-registered User:Bowei Huang and has continued editing under that name. His edit and, more importantly, his warning history has been transferred to User:A1DF67 so he has received a fresh start, with no obvious indication of his previous history. He failed to respond to a request to comment at the WP:AN discussion and that's where everything has stalled.

The result of this is that User:Bowei Huang, who has been identified as a pest, has successfully gamed the system. Surely User:A1DF67's history should be merged back to User:Bowei Huang and appropriate measures, perhaps as suggested by some of the admins in the original discusssion, be implemented, especially since he's still being disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be him who registered the new account. I would suggest indefinitely blocking the account Bowei Huang for suspected user impersonation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That account is blocked either way. I would suggest gathering some diffs of disruption from both accts. and initiating a sockpuppetry investigation. User:Bowei Huang must be blocked indef. either because of sockpuppetry or impersonation. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be... which account was blocked? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently neither so far...but at least User:Bowei Huang should... > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. I would suggest using suspected impersonation as the reason, because that would more closely follow WP:AGF. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A case for sockpuppetry could be made per this edit though... > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's impersonation, it's by his clone. The edits being made by the "new" Bowei Huang are the same as being made by the "old" Bowei Huang. As I indicated in the AN discussion, A1DF67 hasn't edited since the name change. All edits since then, with the exception A1DF67 posting a thankyou for the name change, have been made by Bowei Huang. Edit comparisons can be made at Australia, where he has changed a manual figure to an automated one, implementing it poorly. I've warned him just now about certain changes he's made that have been rejected by other editors:

• "Old" Bowei Huang
• "New" Bowei Huang

This is really WP:DUCK in action. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems fine to start a sockpuppet investigation... > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Investigation open

Investigation open at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. No checkuser request, per WP:AGF and that it is not really necessary. > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Just block the guy and be done with it! Too much wikidrama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would if I could but I won't because I can't. I know we are not a bureaucracy but sometimes bureaucracy helps. > RUL3R_>vandalism 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How? You know that the account was used by an old editor, you also know that if someone else has taken over it then this is a clear case of impersonation. If it is not impersonation then the old user is now using two accounts, which is not allowed. Either way, that original account name should be blocked indefinitely. However, if you use the reason as suspected account impersonation, then you are in essence saying that you have assumed good faith. Everyone is a winner here, and nobody goes away disadvantaged. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the man is in for an indef. If I was an admin he would already have it. But I am not, so, proper channels should be used. > RUL3R_>vandalism 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, more evidence can show up at an investigation, and that is how bureaucracy can help. > RUL3R_>vandalism 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's either impersonation or sockpuppetry. Either way I've blocked them. The investigation can go on to find out which it it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a request for CheckUser be placed? > RUL3R_>vandalism 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why... what would be gained? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much really. Lets wait for further evidence of sockpuppetry to request it. > RUL3R_>vandalism 06:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Community Discussion

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Misplaced Pages since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community . I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here and here . McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom . He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban . This admin not being active, both Kevin and Virtual Steve agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom . When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at . ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Misplaced Pages right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then, including with an IP (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations

Please help. 3 users have teamed up together and deleted entire sections of the article Muhammad and assassinations.I know using the word teamed up is a bad one. But thats how i feel

Even though i have referenced the information, they all started removing sources and sections. I only checked the article today. i dont know what the reason or motivation for remvoing it are. Please get invovled.

please check the edit history. Also we got an adminstrator involved regarding a source: Rodney Phillips, land of gold. But a consesnus has not been reached for 1 day yet.(http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RSN) i do not like how they started rmeoving stuf even when a consesnsus had not been reached.

Size went from 80kb to 30kb in 1 day

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• That article is absolutely terrible. Where's the evidence that one particular individual was more likely to try to knock off his enemies than any other? That was how politics worked back then. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the edit history. it is 3 user remvoing everything wich they cosnider , unreliable, un noteworthy, e.t.c. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Muhammad_and_assassinations&action=history

This is a POV war on a very controversial article. Let the admins sort it out--Mirroryou1 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry for that. please revert. Also i do not think this article should be deleted. This already passed AFD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirroryou1 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article did not used to be ridiculous. It is now. Because some users have deleted almost all the data and background and views of muslim and non muslim scholars--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14

29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirroryou1 appears to be a sockpuppet account. I've worked at trying to cut rubbish out of this article, I wouldnt shed a tear if it was speedily deleted. Its the only article I've ever worked on where I can't work on the lede because I can't fully fathom the purpose of the article. There may be something salvagable in it with further editing. I don't know. That will be worked out on the talk page.Cathar11 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should this article be deleted. secondly we discussed Rodney Phillips but you still removed data from the article. Why is this. A consensus had not even been reached !http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RSN

Regarding sockepuppetry, i have been accused of this before. with user admit the truth. this user is my room mate and his account was banned, not for sock puppetry but from meat puppetry. Secondly i will find sources calling them assassinations as i already have found. but you say they are not RELIABLE..What is the point them of me finding sources. how about i just call them killings and then discuss that non muslim scholars or critics of islam see them as assassinatins????--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirroryou is a pretty clear sock of User miscondeptions2. That article is awful -- a content fork, unfocused, not really about "assasinations" not approached via the scholarly literatutre... one could go on and on. What you have is a single minded, tendenentious editor figthing to prevent an article from at least being made "less wrong." Misplaced Pages is usually terrible at dealing with such problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

the problem is peopleall have different views. Critics of Islam consieer them assassinatins. Muslim ight not. Some muslim who have a POV delete sections they dotn like. Whereas critics will add them baclk. This will go on forever. I think we need to do something to satisfy both sides. Also I am not a sock puppet ot mirroryou1. Please check the computers we use. They are different. Check our IP's--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of sockpuppetry Cathar11.I have different computer than the above, as well as differet IP adress and ISP, i think. U can verify this with the checkuser--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

well i def have a different IP address, and am not using a proxy,either.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know you have a different IP address? You aren't a checkuser? You have no access to Misconceptions2 IP address info, now do you? Unless you do... --Jayron32 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've opened up a new SPI on Misconceptions2 here . The last SPI in december turned up 2 or 3 socks, all being used in the same POV battle. "Mirroryou" has defended himself at the SPI by saying variously he is Misconceptions "next door neighbor" and also his "room-mate."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added many sources that consider them assinations.Now what? i have gotten admin involved and u choose not to discuss. u told me to add websites which cosnider them assinations. and i did that. now u reject this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talk • contribs)

• You really think the article is better when it includes great chunks sourced from Ali Sina, Islam Watch and Faith Freedom? That's an interesting definition of better whihc I thik can be explored at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muhammad and assassinations, though hopefully not by Misconceptions2 as his POV-pushing, edit warring and sockpuppetry are probably sufficient to earn him a one way ticket to the door. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick note

After this diff, I have blocked Mirroryou1 indefinitely as an admitted sock of Misconceptions. I'll be blunt; I've seen less obvious rampaging Tarrasques. -Jeremy 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After receiving an email (rather calm, given the situation) from Mirroryou, I'm going to wait and see what the SPI digs up. —Jeremy 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack

Durova 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TokosMakos (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs). The user's single edit to Misplaced Pages is enough to convince me. Recommend orbital bombardment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Punted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. A quackingly bad title for this section.--219.89.10.170 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not resolved, resolution opens a new can of worms

This has been handled in a very bad way.

Jimbo Wales wrote an editorial in a national newspaper saying how rude people are on the internet. What better place to reverse this trend than Jimbo Wales' own website, Misplaced Pages.

A reformatted request could have read:
TokosMakos (talk · contribs) edit at single edit is unconstructive and disruptive. Due to the nature of the article, this is forbidden. Request blocking user. I think he is a sock of Multiplyuser but the proof of unconstructiveness and disruptiveness is in the edit itself. ---Scjessey

Blocked (or punted) ---LessHeard van U

(the IP quack is ok because that was the title).

When we go on jargon and just guessing on behavior, non-Wikipedians don't understand this and question the clanishness and the lack of precision of the accusations. We need to re-earn the trust of non-Wikipedians so that Misplaced Pages will be respected as an encyclopedia. We need to act like we are all on an editorial board of an encyclopedia, not a myspace bulletin board. Lastly, we must listen to Jimbo Wales and stop being rude and start acting like a professional website that people rely on for information. What better time to start than a new decade.....oh wait, I have to add a user box, award a barnstar, and fix that porn star article. :p JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I take on board your suggestion that we need to "not be rude", but my action in this case was based on the fact that Talk:Barack Obama has recently suffered a series of socks who have all turned out to be Multiplyperfect (or someone else indistinguishable from same) in quick succession. The style of post is very distinct, and I only opened this thread because I was 99% certain. If I'd had any doubt, I would've waited for a couple more confirmation posts before pulling the trigger. You must understand that this one puppeteer has wasted thousands of Wikipedian hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Scjessey. That single edit is a sort of distilled essence of the editing style that caused Multiplyperfect to no longer be welcome to edit here. If it is not them, it is someone deliberately continuing their exact style of disruption - but it actually extending more good faith to assume that is simply the same person doing the same unwelcome things, rather than two people doing unwelcome things separately. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Caravan raids

. miconceptions2 did not sock. the ip ,188.221.108.172 is mine. i will get him unbanned after this sock investigation is over--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolving. The plagiarism has not been addressed. Durova 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

a user has deleted the article caravan raids, claiming its a fork?is this alloweed

see here--188.221.108.172 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, but a redirect. My personal opinion is that a merge should be discussed on the talk page as being bold has generated some controversy. --NeilN 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a content fork to force a negative POV, nothing more nothing less. No compromise needed on such clear violations. Also, the complaining IP is a sock of User:Misconceptions2, who is currently blocked for edit warring over another content fork he created, the since speedily deleted Muhammad and assassinations. There's a discussion opened by him further up this page and an unfinished SPI case here . The Caravan raids article is not the generalized article one would expect, but a highly attack-oriented content fork on Ghazi -- the raiding parties that Mohammed participated in. I'm happy with a redirect since the better, non-forked article certainly needs a lot work and there might be some useful material in the fork for a well-meaning editor to look through in future. Probably the best thing is to make a hard redirect (and dab if anyone gets around to writing a general article on Caravan raids writ large.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The IP making this request is, with very little scope for doubt, Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading his two-week block for disruptive and tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first SPI on Misconceptions2 from a few weeks ago found that this was his ip . Bali ultimate (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody get this sockpuppet banned.Cathar11 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 was blocked for 2 weeks, almost immediately evaded the block with a known sock. The sock has been blocked for 2 weeks but I think that Misconceptions2's original block needs to be extended, ditto the IP, at the very least. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• IP has been blocked for the same duration as Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs). -SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Misconceptions2 just got an indef block for that. I think enough is definitely enough now. Spartaz 19:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, agenda account impervious to Clue. Waste of our time trying to help that one, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Lost upon the earnest participants to this discussion is the fact that the entire lead of the article being "attacked", Ghazw, is plagiarism from this low-quality source.. It was copied and pasted onto Misplaced Pages by User:Tigeroo in 27 August 2006, and has remained unaddressed for over three years now. I've quoted Aboul-Enein and Zuhur in full:

“2. Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into the term for battle, ghazah or ghazwa. These were battles in which the Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi came to mean “warrior for the faith,” as these battles came to be associated with the expansion of Muslim territory.

3. Siriya (s.) Saraya (pl.) were battles Prophet Muhammad commissioned but did not lead. This is also the name for raiding parties and reconnaissance groups, usually on horseback, which he authorized.

4. Ba‘athat (s.) Ba‘athat (pl.) were expeditions or missions primarily diplomatic in nature (e.g., a courier of political exchange), but which some consider combative. It differed from saraya in size.”

Compare Misplaced Pages's Ghazw:

Ghazi or ghazah (plural ghazawāt; Template:Lang-ar, giving rise to Italian razzia) was originally an Arabic term referring to the battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally participated. It has since evolved into a term for battle associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term ghāzī or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants in these later battles and is cognate with the terms ghāziya and maghāzī. In modern Turkish the word means "veteran".

Sirya (plural Saraya) were battles which Muhammad commissioned but did not participate in, and also the name for the usually mounted raiding and reconnaissance expeditions he commissioned but did not participate in.

Ba'atha differed from Saraya in size, and while were sometimes combative were generally expeditions or missions primarily diplomatic in nature (i.e couriers or political exchanges)."

To the extent that it has been reworded, it has only been to introduce further inaccuracies, such as "originally an Arabic term referring to the battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally participated", when in fact the Arabic word predated Muhammad, meant simply "raid ," and had no religious significance. Where is this army of informed volunteers that, we are assured, will correct problems of this kind? Three years should be enough to demonstrate that Misplaced Pages's model isn't working.98.203.142.17 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Such content issues are best discussed on the article talk page, or just be bold and reword the article lede, or update the source. Note that the source is possibly in public domain (it is a Strategic Studies Institute publication, and contains no copyright notice), so it may be sufficient to attribute it appropriately through use of quotation marks and citation. Abecedare (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Plagiarism.98.203.142.17 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who made an edit on caravan raids. Was me, misconceptions2 got perma ban for this, since people say he carried on edit warring. Though this is my IP, and not Misconceptions2

188.221.108.172. i will try get him unbanned afer sock puppet investigation is over!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comments and edit summary

Editor User:Nomoskedasticity has picked up on an earlier dispute regarding content with me and has made comments a bit uncivil as regards me that I felt to be personal and today I have left a request for him to be less personal and he has responded with the removal of my request and this uncivil edit summary I think that volunteers acting in good faith deserve a bit more civility. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I should think the best response is to ignore the edit summary, and assume that they have read and understood the request - and will comply with it. If there has been egregious previous remarks perhaps you could supply a diff, but really I feel it would be best if this thing was allowed fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that option Less, but why should another editor be allowed to talk to me in that way, perhaps he would like to apologize? Here are the cant read comments from the discussions/..here he accuses me of having reading difficulties quote "Off2riorob is apparently encountering reading difficulties in evaluating these sources." and this edit here with the edit summary of reading ability and included the accusatory comment, "This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion leads me to the former. These comments are uncivil and excessive, I was polite and requested a less personal discussion and was repaid with the removal of my comments and the uncivil edit summary of piss off, this is not the correct way to speak to editors here, is it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't the correct way to communicate but neither is it a matter that sanctions are going to be a solution to. There is little that admins can do here, other than to remind the editor to act according to WP:CIVIL same as any other editor. I shall do that now. In future, should there be a recurrence, perhaps you could use the WP:WQA page? The people there are pretty good at sorting out these things. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Right thanks, in future I will go there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I miss good ol' WQA *sniff* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LegatoXxXxXxXx and their apparent WP:DE behavior in Celine Dion article.

• This user, who is new and still unregistered, has, for quite some time, been adding, deleting, and reverting massive amounts of material on the article Celine Dion. This user created the section, "Voice" a few weeks ago and has been adding unverifiable information, and unreliable references in it. The frequent use of inline citations and unreliable sources, like Youtube have been quite tiring to revert. Please see here: The user gives no reasoning towards why he/she gives edits. Other users, including myself have given their input on the user's talk page, and so far, I have not received any feedback from him/her. I feel that the user is utilizing malicious behavior by not giving any of their personal input, ignoring other user's requests, and giving unreliable information in the article and the section. As you may know, the article, Celine Dion is featured, and I do not want this user's uncivil editing and behavior to jeopardize that status. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor might not be reading or understanding the edit summaries. There have been a couple of attempts to hold a dialog with this person at user talk, but not at article talk. Suggest initiating new dialogs there. If the person continues to alter large chunks of text and use unreliable sources without discussion, then admin intervention might be needed. Durova 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will try that. I am just concerned for the article's status. I am trying to stay patient with the user and I'll see if I can engage in some positive discussions with him/her.BalticPat22Patrick 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If they respond and want to take the article in a different direction, try a content request for comment. If they ignore attempts at dialog and attempt to edit war, then it would be time for admin intervention. Durova 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, I tried to make an attempt at some sort of conversation to why they are editing this way. You can see on the user's talk page what I said. Aftwerwards, the user wrote on my talk page, here, at the very bottom . I honestly don't know where to go from here. They stated that they do not care of my contributions, and are acting extremely uncivil in nature. I am concerned that they do not care for the well being of the article itself, only their own personal contributions. BalticPat22Patrick 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, the user just deleted every bit of info in their talk page. I don't know if this is an attempt to conceal anything written, but it surely emits extremely distruptive behavior, at least in my eyes. BalticPat22Patrick 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

need a rollback if possible

hi the skytrax page, which although low traffic is about the a pretty important organization, has had its award list changed around several times in the past few days, removing other airlines/airports and adding back in Lebanese ones... so I tried to undo, but because the other person had made them all intermediate I could only undo 1 out of 4 edits they made. I don't edit the page much and so I don't know what the correct entries are anymore. If you look at the history you will see that there hadn't been many edits at all before Dec 29, so if someone could rollback to that point it would be helpful. Or please tell me how to handle this. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last version that was edited by a bot on December 22. I hope this helps! Frmatt (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those look like good faith, if perhaps unsourced edits. I don't see any need for admin intervention right now, and you should take this up on the article's Talk page unless the editing becomes disruptive. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Geolocate puts that IP in Beirut...I reverted as per WP:DUCK that this was probably a promotional vandal based on the changes. Frmatt (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks guys 66.220.124.56 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two problem articles from Peer Review

Two problem articles have come to light through the Peer Review process and I would appreciate some community input on them and the editors involved. Both articles are written much like advertisements by single purpose account editors with problematic user names and probable conflict of interest issues.

The newer article is Machine Tattoo Removal by Elimitat Tattoo Removal Resource (talk · contribs), who seems to have a close connetion with this company. I think it could be deleted with a redirect to Tattoo removal, as almost all of the information is already there. I have warned the user of the username issues, but have not blocked. Someone else has warned about COI.

The older article is IDiscoveri Education by IDiscoveri (talk · contribs). This is about an Indian education company which seems not to be notable from a quick Google search. The author also seems to have a close connection with the company and I have left COI and username warnings on his/her talk page, but have not blocked. I think this could probably be speedied.

Any input is appreciated, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>° 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged IDiscoveri Education for a speedy delete per G12. The whole article seems to have been pasted in from various websites. --NeilN 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have softblocked the two users, deleted the copyvio, and redirected to content fork Machine Tattoo Removal to Tattoo removal. Can someone ensure that any useful content that was in the Machine Tattoo article is merged into the mother article, and also close the peer review requests appropriately ? Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have closed both peer reviews and will look at the useful content next on Tattoo removal next. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhealthy Interest In Me

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

User:Tbsdy lives enjoys participating in my Talk page with great regularity. So much so that I have had to request he stop, so that I can keep track of the logical flow of information. I have had to make this request five six times in the last 24 hours to no avail. He edits my Talk page with such regularity that he often is making edits so fast that he makes Good Faith errors, and then has to go back and make even more edits to explain the AGF, as is the case here, currently - User_talk:Nothughthomas. He is trying to work as a volunteer mod and I appreciate his spirit of volunteerism. I'm not asking for any sanction on him, just a gentle request from a mod to this user. At this point I think it would be best if he stopped editing my Talk page completely since he doesn't seem to be able to self-police. Again, user's intentions are innocent but it is cause a bit of a headache for me as I'm currently on a 56K connection. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Nothughthomas's assumption of good faith, and I can assure them it was innocent. I didn't realise their block had expired so I added back on the unblock notices. I have formally apologised for my error on their talk page now. I won't be adding much more, unless it is relevant and pertinent. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably it was not simply this one instance and user's definition of "relevant" seems to not be analogous with general sensibility. I know your efforts are well-intentioned but, perhaps you could find a different user to befriend for a bit? Just AGF that I am competent to handle organization of my own affairs without your almost constant assistance (which I do appreciate, but I also like to think and act for myself, too). Thanks for your kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, you have been quite disruptive in your editing practices so far, which was why you were blocked from editing. Now that your block has passed, I'm sure you will modify your behaviour and edit in a manner more conducive to Misplaced Pages norms. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My 24-hour block was because another user and I were in a heated discussion on a hot-button topic (climate change) that was under probation and I got carried away and said something I shouldn't have. This has nothing to do with this noticeboard request, nor you. It is between me, the user who was rightly offended by what I said and the sanctioning mod. Please stop this. I want to continue to AGF but this is really going way overboard. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility is definitely disruptive, and I appreciate that you understand that now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

>SIGH< ... a big and advance thank you to whatever admin ends up having to read all this. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:IZAK

User:IZAK has embarked on what I call a "crusade" and another editor has called a "jihad" against editors affiliated with the Chabad Jewish movement.

1. He posted long diatribes on Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in which used statements like "There are probably even discussions and guidlelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Misplaced Pages as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the Internet." and "He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Misplaced Pages policies." Many editors have disagreed with him, stating that the only problem they see is individual POV edits, but User:IZAK does not concede a milimeter.
2. Now he is stalking my edits, as can be seen from this belligerent edit.
3. And from this revert of my edit.
4. He uses misplaced sarcastic arguments when making a valid point in the course of his anti-Chabad campaign, like in this edit.
5. He used an insulting header when referring to an Afd discussion where users disagreed with him. The heading was actually forcibly changed later on to a neutral one, after long discussion in which User:IZAK did not concede a milimeter.
6. Now he has made the accusation in this edit "Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Misplaced Pages "front lines" because many of them are online so much?". Because a 12 (previously 11) year old kid decided to make a userpage, is that justification for accusing a respectable world-wide religious organisation of "sending kids to the front lines"?! He also said about this kid that "he is a product of something far bigger and more complicated", and actually recommends to "call up his father and yank the kid off Misplaced Pages". Note that in the ensuing discussion User:IZAK as usual does not concede a milimeter.
7. He is trying to overstress the importance of an institution in Jewish seminary, falsifying the facts, and ignoring the original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary, possibly because he is conected with that institution, or simply because it is not a Chabad institution.
8. He continues to edit the first posts of Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in a way that misleads the reader as to how discussion eveloped. That post now reads more like a "J'accuse". When I posted a warning about that, he changed the text of that warning.
9. He kindly welcomes all editors who agree with him to the WP:COI/N thread, but if anybody disagrees with him or even his style, he either adds him to his list of editors under scrutiny, or advises them to remove themselves from the discussion in a self-justifying edit like this one.

In short, IZAK (talk · contribs) has become a tendentious editor, engages in disruptive editing, stalking and personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:IZAK of this thread in this edit. I just happened to see he is always that curteous, see the edit summary and the names-calling in this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of the heated and elaborated discussion on WP:COI/N, I urge all editors to keep a cool head, and address the subject in short posts, as much as possible. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in that WP:COI/N discussion I have not always been civil to User:IZAK, but ever since I asked for advice in another WP:ANI thread I stopped that, and am willing to apologise if necessary. This present post is based upon the general recommendation I received in that thread. I'd also like to draw attention to my first post (timewise) to the discussion, from which anyone can see my rationale and open approach to the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

1. There are no "diatribes" and there is no "tendentious" editing, just a serious in-depth review of the edit history of Dbresser and 3 other editors, that Dbresser does not like, so he comes crying here. Admins are taking the COI case very seriously at the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver that are still ongoing with a number of admins checking and guiding the proceedings as more information is added.
2. User Dbresser has already been reprimanded by an admin and he fought her, at the main discussion, so now he opens a new front here with the hope of escaping the scrutiny he and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors are getting at the main COI complaint. At least 10 outside editors have already added their additionl comments there. They are not giving "diatribes" either.
3. User:Debresser admits about himself: "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi and he is cited as one of four pro-Chabad POV editors who have been violating WP:OWN of all Chabad-related articles, see his own at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs for the full citation of User:Dbressor's WP:COI violation with many diffs -- collection of diffs is NOT considered "stalking" -- it's required.
4. User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI. His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction. There is no merit to the issues in the few articles he cites. He's desperate and it shows. Anyone can see for themselves by taking a look at the articles. He is playing mind games and making false accusations about nothing, hoping admins will forget about the main case of his and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors violations at the main case that is far from over.
5. Rather than deal with the COI citation rationally and calmy, he resorted to the most vile and disgusting personal attacks against me, violating WP:NPA multiple times: calls nominator "mentally ill" sees his error (no apology, though), returns to "mentally instable" (sic), introduces lies about the "FBI", is warned, but again cites "mental problems", adds need for "psychiatrists" to insults,imagines he's against "crusaders and fanatics", calls this post "insane ranting"; calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed". Now he gets upset and cries about the additional diffs I have provided to verify the serious complaint against him and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors. He has some nerve.
6. The articles he cites here, recent small edits of no real value or meaning, are recent edit issues and have nothing to do with any organization or group, unlike Dbresser who when it comes to Chabad-related topics on Misplaced Pages always edits according to that organization's party line and violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:LAWYER and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.
7. His claims about the new material are patently silly because there have been constant requests for diffs that has required the addition that editors, including Dbresser and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editor allies, as well as admins have requested. Adding diffs is not a luxury or a negative of any sort, it's a required part of a serious complaint and it takes time, in this case it involves four editors being cited for COI violations, and looking up and producing those diffs has required more space as well as time.

To sum up, the rest of Debresser's points are just frivolous minor distractions and a delaying action that he is trying to create from the focus remaining on him and his three allies. He is not doing anyone here a favor by trying to split up the discussions between two points and making admins jump back and forth. This new thread should be combined with the main discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I have not "fought" anyone, I have disagreed in a so far open-ended discussion. The accusation of "opening a new front" is incorrect and just serves to distract from the point.

4. I have no idea what is meant by "User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI", nor do I appreciate "His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction".

6. Calling his own edits "small edits of no real value or meaning" is a clear attempt to avoid the issue.

7. He continues talking about an "organization's party line", thereby stresing my point that his distorted perception of reality is leading him to disruptive and tendentious editing.

Debresser (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that IZAK's editing is bothering you, Debresser. From a quick reading of your evidence, I'm unable to form an opinion as to whether any policies have been violated or not; I'm sorry I don't have time now to look in more detail. I suggest the following course of action as more likely to achieve positive results: first, apologize to IZAK for each of your own incivilities; the reason is that people find it hard to really listen to messages from people who have been uncivil to them. You can't force IZAK to change, but you can have the greatest chance of influencing IZAK in a positive direction if you start with your own behaviour first. Second, try very hard to make all your comments to IZAK as diplomatic and friendly as possible, to help IZAK forget the incivilities and be able to really listen to you. Third, when IZAK behaves in a way you consider inappropriate, discuss it in a friendly way on IZAK's user talk page, trying to express your messages in a way most likely to actually result in IZAK understanding your reasons and complying with your requests; stating things in a gentle and friendly way tends to help here. It's often best to discuss one issue at a time. Fourth, if you and IZAK are unable to resolve things through discussion with each other, then escalate slowly through the stages of WP:DR (which might or might not eventually bring you back to this noticeboard, but I suggest you try my suggestions first). Good luck, and feel free to ask me for help, though I'm editing less often these days. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig for your kind words. This is a very complicated situation and User:Debresser only opened this frivolous "complaint" here to escape the hard realities HE and his three pro-Chabad POV co-editors must come to terms with, deal with and answer for at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver with the specific complaints of violating WP:COI and the many diffs about that for User:Debresser at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. I have also requested below and at the COI discussion Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Attempt at splitting this discussion that User:Debresser has done us all an injustice by splitting the debate, trying to open a "second front" as it were here and even a smokescreen to avoid facing the music at the COI complaint. I have asked for admin help in not splitting the discussions into two, and to consolidate them together there where they began and where they belong at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver where all the facts and background are presented and would explain why Debresser is trying to run for cover here. Thanks again for your patience. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I resent the insinuation that I "ran here for cover". I have stated in my very first post in the WP:COI/N discussion that I have no problem with any uninvolved party examening my editing, and that I am confident they will find my edits to reveal no noteworthy POV editing. I shall wait with patience for another editor who has the patience to see whether User:IZAK is indeed being a tendentious and disruptive editor, as I am sure he is. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that could turn into a 4chan attack,

Anal masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this link. The user who added it in is EFG2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and is very likely the same one who opened that thread on 4chan containing this image. They have also been trying to edit war their edit in.— Dædαlus 13:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning. I see the contributor has now been cautioned. I've watchlisted the article. Blocking or page protection may prove necessary if it persists. --Moonriddengirl 13:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the thread.— Dædαlus 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank link doesn't seem to be working. However, I'm inclined to think that the least said the better, in the interest of not feeding. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Ankur sharma

A legal threat has been made at Talk:Ankur sharma, an article which was recently deleted at AFD and has since been recreated a few times. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mifter (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP is dynamic and the range is common, so I'm not sure an indef block will be very helpful. I had salted three titles previously and this threat was posted after the salting. -SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think their concern may have been that the article is cached in Google and shows up on searches , but clicking it leads to the deleted page and then the AFD discussion, which has comments like "vanity" and "self-promotion". Can AFD discussions be courtesy blanked - I've seen this on older ones but I don't know if it's still done? Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've just courtesy blanked the AFD, per your request :). Best, Mifter (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell and James dalton bell (talk · contribs)

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article , has tried to repeatedly post allegations of judicial misconduct and his own theory on global warming which I removed as being unsourced, clear cut violations of WP:BLP and WP:OR. I and other editors have told him multiple times what the issues are regarding the edits, but he continues to be argumentative about it and claims that I am part of some inept conspiracy to silence him and that I am editing on somebody's behalf. He also opened a MedCab case and called for my banning and that I am harassing people . He has now added allegations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry . Can some involved uninvolved admin or editor please intervene? Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As probably the only "involved admin or editor" having written the bulk of the article, I would encourage anyone inclined to pitch in to read very carefully the history of the subject, and proceed with any dispute resolution with the greatest consideration for the positions and dispositions of those involved.  Skomorokh  17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bad typo... "uninvolved". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have written what I hope is a comprehensive overview of the issues, and the means to address them, on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by GoRight

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

GoRight (talk · contribs) warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else " he "may be blocked without further warnings". (by Jehochman, transcribed to User talk:GoRight by me). ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to appeal the warning imposed at and specifically , logged at and specifically – GoRight (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that editor

Statement by GoRight

We have here a brand new process related to the probation of the Climate Change articles. There is a pending arbitration request regarding this process at . However, should these probationary sanctions be upheld as valid, either explicitly or by a failure of Arbcom to hear the case, then some amount of "kicking the tires" of the process to establish the acceptable boundaries thereof will be inevitable. Someone has to be the first one to work things through the system, and since I was indirectly and informally "nominated" to do so in the first such case I see no reason not to accept that dubious role. So here we are.

I was surprised to actually be sanctioned as a result of filing this case. As I explained in the case itself I was choosing the make use of the new process rather than engage in the edit waring that I was reporting. These sanctions list edit waring as a primary example of what they are intended to cover. My report clearly drew the attention of the admins who monitor the request for enforcement page to an article that is clearly covered by the probationary sanctions where active edit waring was currently taking place. The edit waring in question was obvious and was being done by multiple editors. I chose NOT to single out any editors for action but merely requested that editors from either side of the dispute be blocked for a violations of these new probationary sanctions.

If this use of the request for enforcement page is not appropriate, simply stating as much would have been sufficient. However, since I was sanctioned merely for trying to make use of this new process let us follow this all the way through and thus I am filing this appeal.

In this instance I have been warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests". The use of the word "further" in this case clearly implies that this filing was either (a) frivolous, or (b) vexatious.

I claim that it was actually neither:

(a) A Frivolous Filing

My report was clearly drawing attention to violations of the probationary sanctions on an applicable articled. Though my report may have been insufficiently specified, it clearly was NOT frivolous. There WAS edit waring occurring at the time and place I indicated. Is it not the purpose of this request for enforcement page to have such instances pointed out? If not then this should be made clear.

(b) A Vexatious Filing

To be vexatious I have to have been trying to harass someone. Who was I harassing with this report? I singled out no particular editor, nor did I call for blocks to be applied to only one side of the dispute. So I fail to see how this can be considered a vexatious filing.

Given this I seek to have this sanction reversed and to have it stricken from the log. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses

@Jehochman: Please WP:AGF. What is the harm in taking a new process through its paces? I have already uncovered a bug in the appeal template. If for no other reason this exercise was useful. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasting people's time with frivolous process is not a good thing to do. You ought to be blocked until you agree to desist. Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project to create a high quality encyclopedia. It's not the Senate where ]]filibuster]]ing is often used. Jehochman 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB: I was specifically directed here from . --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: This sanction is duly logged as such on the probationary sanctions log page. I believe that should qualify it as fit for appeal. There is, of course, a real sanction even in this warning as it asserts that I may now be summarily blocked without further warning. So there is an impact on me. --GoRight (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests" - This is incorrect. That filing was closed as not being at the appropriate venue. No sanction against me came out of that report nor have I pursued the matter further. --GoRight (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" , and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt ." - This is incorrect. I am not adament in opposition to anything. I merely want to ensure that if these sanctions are imposed that they truly and unambiguously have the full force of community deliberations. My use of the term "puported" is accurate in this instance since the legitimacy thereof is still being challenged. Only after such challenges have been put to rest can the sanctions truly be considered enacted. If anything my actions in that respect only serve the strengthen the legitimacy of the sanction should they survive those appeals. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals." - I dispute that my request or that this appeal are frivolous. The request was properly drawing attention to violations of the conditions of the probationary sanctions and should, therefore, not be considered frivolous. I have been tangibly harmed by this warning and so its appeal should not be considered frivolous either. Please WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I disagree. The issuance of this warning allows (or so it indicates) admins to block me without having to warn me further. That is a tangible loss on my part. And since my report was neither frivolous nor vexatious as Jehochman asserts I should not be subjected to such a loss, hence I am appealing the decision. I admit that it is not a major loss on my part but it is sufficient to run this case through the process, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@JzG (aka Guy): Strictly speaking, an appeal is not a forum shop. Also, this is the first place I have taken the appeal. Neither are you uninvolved with respect to myself so your comments should be weighted accordingly. --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Process Notes

• The appeal template seems to have a bug as I don't know why the "Appealing user" comes out as "Example" above. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed that bug in {{Sanction appeal}}, thanks.  Sandstein  20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Please block GoRight for vexatious abuse of process. It is foolish of them to appeal a mere warning. (I should have just blocked them, instead of hoping for a good faith response to the warning.) Jehochman 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by GoRight

Sometimes it takes multiple attempts to make an end run around consensus decisions for an editor to see that he cannot get his way by creative use of process. I urge that we permit GoRight the leeway he needs to see that Misplaced Pages is against his behavior. He has been banned from vexatious behavior a venue where he has pursued particularly vexatious claims, but I think he has a right to see that ban reviewed. --TS 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I'm not sure that I follow what Tony means but personally this is enough. GoRight needs a block now to prevent further disruption of the project. Enough is surely enough now. Spartaz 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see any actions worthy of a block, what specifically is the block to be for? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Multiply vexatious wasting of the communities time and patience. Its a classic preventative block for disruption, because while GoRight is blocked they cannot lodge any more bogus and pointy requests. Spartaz 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all, this is a good faith appeal of a restriction. Are you from the opposing side of the content dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I never edited a climate article in my life so I'm not sure what side you think I am on, but it is obvious to everyone that I would be unable to fairly undertake any admin action involving GoRight as I think he is a disruptive editor who should be banished from the project. I am entitled to state my opinions like anyone else and the value or otherwise of my arguments can be judged in the final analysis. I can see that I am not alone in considering this appeal to be vexatious & disruption so I'm not really sure what your point is. And what side are you on by the way? Spartaz 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were personally involved, I assumed climate but it seems to be just a general involvement, I dislike the shouting for the heads of editors except when really needed.. and then I find that there is no need for the shouting, the editor is simply blocked and that is that. I am on the side of the underdog. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know GoRight hasn't been banned from anything. He's merely been warned not to make frivolous and disruptive enforcement requests concerning the recently enacted Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests; an enforcement request against unnamed "Multiple Editors" which resulted in a second warning; and now this appeal of the second warning. This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" , and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt . It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals. This sort of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It just looks like a good faith request to appeal what he sees as a unwarranted warning. These single admin restrictions are controversial, Jimbo said he was against them on his userpage recently. Are you involved in the content dispute CrisO? I would like to see if some uninvolved editors feel a block is needed for reguesting this appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is about a content dispute. No content is involved. GoRight's complaints have all concerned the process of the article probation, not the content of any specific article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no restriction (yet) to appeal. This request is pure grandstanding or pot stirring. Jehochman 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have suffered a tangible loss by the issuance of this warning under false pretenses. I merely seek to have that reversed. Rather than commenting on me, perhaps you can address my arguments above to support your contention that my filing was either (a) frivolous or (b) vexatious. Please take these proceedings seriously. --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) If Jehochman is allowed to post in this section then I am allowed to respond here as well.

• My threshold for vexatious litigation is a bit higher than GoRight has met at present (not including this, as the request for review is perfectly legitimate), but strongly encourage them to be more considerate in the future and take heed of the warning. I did not participate in that discussion, but agree with the result. I stress that specific requests regarding specific behavior of specific editors who may have edited in violation of the probation continue to be welcome at WP:GSCC. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think one can usefully appeal a mere warning, as such, any more that one can "appeal" a warning on one's user talk page: it is not an actual sanction. I agree with many of the above that this is a borderline vexatious request.  Sandstein  20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Venue

Without commenting one way or the other whether the appeal has merit, it is not clear to me whether WP:ANI is the appropriate venue. Perhaps those administering sanctions should create a subpage of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation where appeals can be heard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation page does say that sanctions under this remedy can be appealed to AN/I. A warning is not a sanction per se but the same principle surely applies. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see it now (linked under "appropriate administrators noticeboard"). But I still think it would be better for appeals be centralized under the sanctions page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I suggest that should be discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement rather than here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. It needs a CENT under sanctions, or that location just above mentioned by ChrisO seems like it's exactly what we're looking for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea to referring appeals here is to get review from fresh perspectives. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think this makes sense, as the dedicated enforcement page (WP:GS/CC/RE) is likely to be watched mostly by people involved in the subject-related disputes. It would be good if more uninvolved admins were to watchlist it.  Sandstein  20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Location aside, with WP:CANVASS, WP:ADMINSHOP and the like, this guideline is pointless and I don't know why it was ever permitted. It's just plain common sense with weaseled working included. It's like saying "users cannot create new socks if currently a participant in an SPI investigation." Not sure how this is "fresh eyes", since I'd venture 90% of persons reading here are either already involved somewhere in the process, accidentally involved via others, or just sick to death of it. Oh, and there will never be any kind of consensus, about anything here. Ever. Especially if actual end opinions are for non-involved administrators, for which there seem to be very few left. Between some being active topic participants and so many others involved in enforcements on general Misplaced Pages standards in general, I don't know what good pumping a dry well like this is going to do. If not this time, it'll come up next time, or the next, and so on. There is actually a finite number of admins generally active most days, and especially a limit to number who will read ANI daily... this being why I'd say a centralized discussion will be needed at some point, regardless. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. The old saw about there being a thousand admins has always sounded hollow to me, since easily 900+ will not touch this kind of festering sore with a ten foot pole. I'm pretty sure they are the smart ones. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GoRight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The forum shop is now closed

GoRight has just about run out of venues to take this, I'd say. Time to close the discussion. He's been warned, he doesn't like it, bad luck. Until some action is taken as a result of that warning there is nothing to do, nothing to see and nothing to discuss. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the wrong way to do things

I share to a considerable extent GoRight's opinion about the way these sanctions were implemented. But I think he is choosing about the most unproductive way of calling attention to it there can possibly be; I ask him to heed Jehochman's warning, before he forfeits all possibly sympathy and harms his position. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Lincolnshire and Talk:Lincoln.

User:Jeni and others are operating a WP:CABAL involving the Lincoln page, trying to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire over other pages in the disambiguation. They tagged the disambiguation page as part of WP:Lincolnshire, despite the fact that disambiaguation pages rarely are linked to projects other than WP:DAB and it was a POV violation (It's completely unfair to tag it as a project only associated only with a single link, when there are other links involved). When I boldly untagged it, they screamed bloody murder. In addition, they continue to push POV and disrupt, while accusing others like me who have not violated policy, pushed POV, or disrupted as doing so. These users should stop their cabal to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire on other pages. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that you failed to remove the Biography WikiProject, which is in line with your personal POV. More proof that you are out to disrupt and prove a point Jeni 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatent lie: If you look at my edit, you'll see that I also deleted WPBiography. Also, biography applies to several people on the page, Lincolnshire only applies to Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't look close enough. But still, you have purposefully stirred up trouble despite others telling you not to. Jeni 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many members of WP:Lincolnshire have commented on the latest proposed move? Please check your facts before posting defamatory comments about whole groups. I strongly suggest you redact mention of WP:Lincolnshire from the title of this section. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a member of WP:Lincolnshire, are you Nev? Jeni 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, and since I am one of the one's who "screamed bloody murder" (read: asked what the policy is on the matter) I resent a whole project being grouped with my actions. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that you still POV pushed and disrupted while accussing me and a mop of being disruptive, when we weren't POV pushing and being disruptive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if a user is a mop, bucket, spade, badger, ferret, rock, paper, scissors, lizard or Spock. I fail to see its relevence --Narson ~ Talk • 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

The above user has started stirring up trouble again over at Talk:Lincoln removing project banners whenever it takes his fancy. Several users have cottoned on to this and attempted to let him know (via his talk page and mine), yet he still continues in his quest to eradicate anything that isn't in line with his POV. It needs an administrator to have a word with him, since he blatantly won't listen to anyone else, then failing that, further action. Jeni 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User notified here Jeni 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having banners that represent only one line of a disambiguation page involving many lines is completely wrong, it violates POV and is a cabal. Jeni has been pushing much more POV than I have--another editor and I cite numbers, and she accuses us of POV. I violated no policy (I edited with bold), those banners clearly did and that's why they must be removed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It was two acctually, there was a biography one there too which you removed (Though never complained about). You edited with bold, but were then reverted and failed to discuss. In fact you had already discussed this on the page, so being bold after discussion has started can be seen as plain disruptive. It was certainly ill thought out as it was only likely to ramp up tension further. You also spouted some rather offensive nonsense about people from Lincolnshire here. While the rather nasty mood on the page is by no means Purplebackpack's fault, he seems to be (I'm assuming through inconsideration here rather than some design) ramping up tensions by constantly poking at things like the disambig's start and the banners. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx3 or 4 or argh. So many)

Apologies for the duplicated threads, it appears that Purplebackpack89 beat me to it by a few seconds. Jeni 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the project tags on the dab are probably not appropriate, considering I doubt the Lincolnshire Wikiproject has much to do with a dab that consists primarily of links to place outside Lincolnshire. That said, it's hardly an "incident", so you should probably take your concerns to the relevant talk pages or to WT:WikiProject Lincolnshire. Oh, and enough with the accusations of "stirring up trouble again" and a "cabal"). HJMitchell You rang? 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects specifically have an article class for disambiguation pages. If it is "probably not appropriate", why are they there, and used? Jeni 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not for what they're being used for on the Lincoln page. Agree with Mitch Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (this is still the wrong forum) I suggest you remove all project banners except the DAB project or add the banners for each and every project whose area is covered by the links at Lincoln. In response to your point, btw, I would imagine it would be appropriate to tag a dab whose links all consist of pages within the scope of that project, but in this case, the vast majority do not. HJMitchell You rang? 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are they being used for on the Lincoln page, in your honest unbiased opinion? Jeni 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly? Taking up space and fuelling tension. HJMitchell You rang? 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that was aimed at Purpleback, indecently the only person that has a problem with it. The other appropriate wikiprojects should be added. Jeni 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both sides could truly use a cup of tea here. I agree with HJM above, I don't understand the purpose of a disambig page being tagged as part of a project, when the page deals with every other mention of the word on Misplaced Pages. Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Its only a problem because we have a paranoid editor screaming cabal, when no members of the wikiproject have actually made a comment on the subject at hand. Last I checked, there was no policy against Wikiprojects tagging disambiguation pages, and just because one editor has an issue with it (who can't back up his problems with any sort of policy) doesn't mean it should be removed. Jeni 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that not make one wonder if the Lincolnshire wikiproject actually gives rat's arse about whether the page is tagged as within their project or not? As Dayewalker said, the page deals with just about every mention of Lincoln anywhere on WP. HJMitchell You rang? 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that (as its name infers) Lincoln is the county town of Lincolnshire, then Lincoln is very important to the Lincolnshire WikiProject (and is tagged with such importance), hence it is tagged in the first place. Its also perfectly feasible that there isn't anybody online from said WikiProject to comment at this time. Jeni 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that their editors will, like most of us, not give a rat's ass. However, what pages are tagged should be mostly a project's choice IMO, not to be decided by third parties telling them what is good for them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx2)

(ec x2) Seeing as no one from the project has commented in the discussion (yet), the answer is perhaps not. I don't see the need for project tags on talk:Lincoln (the point of tagging something for a project is that it draws the project's attention to it for improvement, but this seems outside WP:Lincolnshire's remit), but I was concerned by 1) the timing and 2) Purpleback's action despite the fact that he'd started a discussion about it on the talk page and didn't wait for consensus. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but reverting Jeni was wrong, and it should have been pretty obvious that it would cause confrontation. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How many cities worldwide have been named after British cities? Do you propose that every single dab on the project relating to them be tagged as part of that Wikiproject? I was going to use Boston (disambiguation) as an example but it's already tagged as part of WP:Lincolnshire (the town in Lincs is tiny! Why isn't it tagged as part of the Massachusetts project?!?!). Either tag Lincoln with the Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, New Zealand, New Brunswick etc etc etc project banners or just leave the dab project banner on. HJMitchell You rang? 23:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we add all the appropriate wikiprojects, there is no maximum number afterall. Jeni 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jeni: I honestly think, POV or no POV, that the purpose of the tag was to get as many Lincolnshire editors involved as possible, including those discussions involving articles outside the scope of WP:Lincolnshire (and that's where my concerns of POV come in). When JHunterJ started a discussion of redirect, you yourself alerted the Lincolnshire project, but did not alert the disambiguation project (I had to myself). Also, if we tagged every concerned project, there'd be 50-100 projects tagged--some articles in that section already, and there are dozens of articles. And there you go again with the accusations--I am not a paranoid schizo! Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (the alternate account of Purplebackpack89)

I hate to appear to be taking sides here, but to tag it with every project banner is just ridiculous. I just counted- you will need 47 different WikiProject tags. HJMitchell You rang? 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Belugaboy535136 WikiProject Problems

After exhausting all other options to try and curb this user it has come to my attention we now require administrator intervention. Below is a Copy of a Posting on User:Belugaboy535136s talk page that is a direct result of his continued actions to disrupt WikiProjects concerning animals.

WikiProject Intervention

Belugaboy535136, It has come to my attention that you are infact deceiving not only me but a large number of other users.Below is a list of my concerns.

1. You wrote User_talk:ZooPro#WikiProject_Primatesthis on my talk page then claimed you did not want the coordinators job yet this comes up.
2. In your first instance of speaking with me you told me you were voted in as coordinator, i knew this to be false, once again an attempt to decieve myself and others.
3. Your lack of experience on wikipedia is in itself not a problem, however your "obsession" with power/position is a very big problem.
4. If you had been a part of the projects for some time and had contributed to them greatly i would have had no problem with you seeking a position as a coordinator. This is not the case though. You have in fact not contributed to any of the projects you have signed up for instead hindering some.
5. If you were infact trully dedicated to a project like Cetaceans you would not have jumped ship and moved to Primates this again just reinforces my view you want a title instead of a job.

I have personally left this off the Admin Notice Board as i dont want to see you punished for some silly mistakes as with some work you may come to be a good editor (if you lose the power complex), however i have no control over other editors so it may very well end up there.

In regards to your editing of articles such as Red-faced Spider Monkey it is called a Red-faced Spider Monkey that is the IUCN name, i am somewhat annoyed by this though. You have claimed your uncle works for IUCN i find this extremely hard to believe and is another attempt to deceive editors. When an experienced editor is telling you something you should listen.

In light of all this i am requesting that you cease and desist. This matter has been let go for far too long, i allowed you to continue unwarned as i assumed good faith now i am not so sure if i did take the correct action in that respect.

Consider this an official warning.

ZooPro 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems more and more of your actions are coming under scrutiny such as this. I may reconsider my decision not to bring this to the admin board. ZooPro 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

and another ZooPro 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now whilst i dont always see eye to eye with Michael both on and off wikipedia i have never yelled at him,another issue. ZooPro 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And this. ZooPro 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does your whole family work at IUCN?? i only ask because of this. ZooPro 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are a lot of dubious claims of your family being part of the IUCN. Perhaps you should read WP:ORIGINAL; everything on Misplaced Pages needs sources, not someone's imagination. --ZooFari 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belugaboy535136, the following message was written after your immature reactions to criticism of your co-ordination aspirations. At the time I wasn't sure if it was too harsh, but since other Wikipedians are becoming frustrated with your lack of progress, I've decided to chime in to show the general impression you seem to making on the community.

Belugaboy535136, we need a chat. I think you mean really well, but it seems you started off on the wrong foot. I don't know what caused your manic opening stint here at Misplaced Pages, but it's clear that you've stubbed your toes and need to reconsider the pace at which you barge through the doorways. You've started an article out of the project scope, mangled an article, mislead the community and no you seem to have tried to cover your tracks.

These represent, however, only one side of your mostly fine edits. You do seem to be sincerely interested in benefiting the project which is why the community has been understanding of your actions, correcting issues that arise and pointing you in the right direction. That won't change as long as you are open with people about what you're doing, discuss issues that arise and learn from your mistakes.

No-one is interested in your past (thus there is no need to erase it), only your potential as a beneficial contributor. A few suggestions: Make sure you don't consider articles you've contributed to "yours". They're not. Leave your personal ambitions at the door, right next to your ego. Don't take things personally, but assume responsibility. Be straight, clean up your mess and read up on project policies and guidelines to learn about best common practices.

I hope you draw some meaningful, positive lessons from your first week as a Wikipedian and look forward to working with you on Cetacean-related articles. Happy editing, --Swift (talk)

Let me just add that I hope you take these last few comments from your fellow Wikipedians to heart for their good intentions. But you'll have to make a sharp turn on this: You're losing friends quickly. --Swift (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Swift is saying, there are editors here, myself included that would be happy to take u under our wing and show you the ropes but you also need to take our advice. ZooPro 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After further issues of this user then removing all of this from his userpage without responding to our questions/requests i had to bring it here at the request of a number of other users.

There is muliple issues surrounding this user and a quick look through his contribution page shows the extent of the problem. He is removing valid and correct information regarding the IUCN on alot of animal pages, this inturn is misleading anyone who reads those articles.

I will leave it in your capable hands. Cheers ZooPro 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:SkagitRiverQueen and rollback

. This editor is clearly abusing rollback. --Rschen7754 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Full disclosure: I'm one of the editors whose comments were removed. I've posted to SkagitRiverQueen asking for an explanation, but pending a good one, I can't see how these rollbacks are what the tool is intended for. -GTBacchus 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed rollback from SkagitRiverQueen. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen Using Rollback To Remove Other Editors' Comments

SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) apparently received rollback on the first of the month, since then she's been involved with a dispute at Talk:Ted Bundy with user Wildhartlivie. She used rollback to remove WHL's comments on another user's page here , I commented on her page here , specifically warning her about using rollback in a dispute or to remove non-vandalism here . She ignored me, and roled back another editor's comments on the page here . I am requesting her rollback rights be removed until she can understand what the tool is to be used for. Dayewalker (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards