Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 15 January 2018 (OneClickArchiver archived Potential COI and disruptive editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 admin 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 Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

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

• List of Bible verses not included in modern translations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Misplaced Pages policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

A Timeline

At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: .

Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing."

Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: (31 December).

Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." .

At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them:

At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Misplaced Pages page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: .

At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: .

At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V.

Sussberman ignored my reply.

At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: .

At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: .

At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: .

At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: .

In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: . The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: . It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: . The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: . It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a fifth: . It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number six: . It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number seven: . It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.

The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.

Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider that a legitimate threat of violence, and a indefinite block seems harsh, and unwarranted. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no way in hell I'm letting "I'm gonna shoot you for reverting me" stand, whether it's "legitimate" or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, had he said: "I'm going to shoot you for reverting me", then it would have been a good block. Nice straw man. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you wouldn't summarize that diff the way I just did, then how would you summarize it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have summarized it at all. I would have asked him what the hell he meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No matter how much you WP:WIKILAWYER about it, there is only one possible interpretation of "this is why the Second Amendment exists" in that context. We don't give people a "get out of making a naked threat of violence free" card just because they don't use specific words to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The only one Wiki-lawyering is you, which I understand, as AN/I is filled with admins defending the indefensible, lest their own infallibility one day be called into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that casting of aspersions, I don't believe this conversation can go anywhere productive, so I'm out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given how obviously confused this user is about so much else, did it occur that he could have the 1st and 2nd Amendments confused, lamenting interference with his perceived right to free speech here? I ask this having more than once heard an (obviously confused) individual state: "the 1st Amendment grants us the right to bear arms". It just seems incredibly unlikely that this user would make such a giant leap from frustration to threats of murder so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit on my talk page, where the editor says that they are "very angry", and claims that Alephb deliberately sabotaged their work, would seem to be pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention revoking talk-page access immediately, allowing the user no chance to even explain what was meant. I guess that was a prophylactic measure; less chance the user can complain about it if you shut them up preemptively. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, the user appealed the block and is currently able to edit. Funny how that works.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's anything but funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb - Haven't you learned anything yet? Well, you didn't learn anything four years ago, and maybe you didn't learn anything two months ago. You appear to have jumped into this controversy that you were not originally involved in, just to dump on an admin or something. Four years ago you were asked to try to be less provocative. Two months ago OR and NYB made a last plea with you to try to change your behavior when Tomstar81 had requested arbitration. I requested that ArbCom take the case, not merely to deal with you, but also to define a procedure for dealing with editors who poke you, like poking a bear, and then try to blame you. However, in this case, you just came running into this conflict like a bear on a tear. This conflict didn't involve you, and you should have left alone, and, if you can't learn to leave things alone sometimes, you will wind up in a bearcage, known as an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got one hell of a nerve. Please take your passive-aggressive pot-stirring elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I think you need to be less trigger happy. There's no way that statement deserved an indefinite block. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have seriously contemplated an indef if I had seen it. That kind of implication is totally unacceptable here. --NeilN 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a blatant threat of violence and was dealt with appropriately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Is there anything you feel you can say about why this block was lifted? I ask because it does not seem obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He was unblocked by User:Yunshui, who could perhaps shed some light on this, as I too am quite curious. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do so. The UTRS appeal made it clear that this was basically intended as a very poor-taste attempt at humour, not a deliberate threat of violence. The editor has said that they will not repeat it, and has also stated that they will step away from the List of Bible verses... article, which also assuaged my concerns about future edit warring. I checked with Sarek via email, and on getting his agreement, lifted the block, as it was no longer serving a purpose (the behaviour which cause the block is not going to be repeated). Yunshui _水 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yunshi: Thanks for that explanation. I hope that the editor's promises hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that threats of violence results in being blocked for a shorter time-period than someone who violated 3RR once, I would like to take this opportunity to request an indefinite IBAN. I have been threatened not only with violence, but with more mundane retaliation as well: , and user who made the threats has not, as far as I can tell, offered any assurances that they will not carry them out. I think under these circumstances, an IBAN is warranted. And I'm not saying that because I want the user punished. I do not give the slightest shit whether the ban is one-way or two-way. If the user will not give me some assurance that I won't be retaliated against, I request that the community does so. Alephb (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I'm going to take the assertion that there are no outstanding threats now at face value. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At least for myself and as of right now, I consider the personal threats issue resolved. What is not resolved is the continued personal attacks: i.e., , which was written just a few hours ago. But progress comes in steps. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I don't think that S's final remark comes close to being a personal attack. It was snide, and completely unnecessary -- I've suggested to him that he strike it for those reasons -- but not a violation of WP:NPA. I think it would behoove S. to mind his P's and Q's considering that he just had an indef block lifted, but that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you are uninvolved, there's a good chance you have a more reasonable opinion on this than myself. Fair enough. Alephb (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

• Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (METROTEL.COM.AR)
• 181.92.112.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Dyck99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.226.154.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 181.105.12.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.92.114.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 186.125.41.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.90.148.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR

etc.

Maximiliano Korstanje is an Argentine sociologist. A small number of IPs and accounts have extensively edited his article, adding much resume inflation which has since been rolled back, and also editing numerous other articles to add his viws primary sourced from his own publications, again rolled back.

Today I blocked 190.104.232.132, after the IP reinserted another mention of Korstanje primary-sourced to his published work. I blocked for:

• Promotional editing, adding WP:REFSPAM to Maximiliano Korstanje (IP address geolocates to subject's location and edits suggest a close connection).
• Disruptive editing, adding all-capitalised meta-commentary to mainspace which also strongly suggest that this IP is, or is closely associated with, Korstanje.
• The entire editing history of this IP is indicative of strong POV aggressively pushed (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nova_Science_Publishers&diff=prev&oldid=740686385).

I think it may be time for a formal ban on the person behind these IPs and accounts. Style and meta-commentary makes it unlikely it's more than one person. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: just also blocked 181.90.148.76 for the same crap. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support formal ban on the person. I've also had experience of these IPs/accounts and assumed good faith of the account User:Noellesch9 till my eyes bled; then I indeffed. I agree it's probably all one person — as you say, a person that is... yes, closely associated with Korstanje. This comment from Noellesch9, their last, is interesting; it suggests the promoter has moved to the English Misplaced Pages because they couldn't get any traction in Spanish wiki (because all the editors who opposed their editing there were it seems "abusive" and "never intellectuals"). A formal ban on the person behind this would be morally satisfying, and I support it. Practically speaking, we'll also most likely have to semi the article Maximiliano Korstanje forever and a day. And how about a filter for keeping out Korstanje-related spam from other articles? (Said she hazily. I don't understand filters very well.) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Hoax

I've been ignored a few times, so now I'm "forum shopping" until someone explicitly tells me the only alternative is to revert manually until I get tired of it. Among other reasons why edits like this can't be true: no references that mention his name, and this similar edit where he claims a well-known title that hasn't been used since World War I. User:Abibmaulana been blocked, so now he usually uses a new IP address every time. We semi-protected The Blackstone Group, where most of the vandalism edit war can be found, so he moved to several similar articles about corporations until it expired. I've read about "range blocks", which might help because 19 of his IPs are in the range 120.188.4.122 to 120.188.95.142, but that doesn't include 162.217.248.203, 188.119.151.166, 114.4.78.231, 114.4.79.165, and 114.4.82.82. Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested might help, but not for me - 3 days ago I emailed according to the instructions on that page's edit page, and the only response was that my request is being held because I'm not on some list. This must be a common problem, so what usually happens? Art LaPella (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the Blackstone article and threw out a rangeblock. I can't help you with the blacklist--sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want some consolation, I've also dealt with people owning the World Bank, Sony and numerous other companies. It seems to be a thing. We have constructed temporary edit filters for this type of thing before, and that shouldn't be a problem this time (filter 684 perhaps), but don't use the mailing list - drop the request directly at WP:EFR, and provide a few more links than you have here. But, you might still need to wait for more than 3 days. -- zzuuzz 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made such a request, as the word "temporary" above implies you don't want the overhead of a filter if we aren't using it, and the problem hasn't returned so far (thanks User:Drmies). Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Art LaPella: I investigated this in a fair amount of detail before indeffing this user. It seems clear to me that this is self-promotion of some sort. I know for a fact that there are filters in place to catch other folks who create articles including a certain name, so the same should be possible here. I'm afraid I can't find the filter at the moment: possibly Oshwah may be able to help. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! There are a few edit filters in place to block and reject edits that add certain words to articles - I helped implement the filters to stop that "Ryan ross milk" vandalism that went rampant a few months earlier. Let me read through this ANI and see what I can suggest we do... ~Oshwah~ 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81

Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please evaluate if this user is here to contribute to encyclopedia, and, if yes, whether they are competent enough to contribute. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Looking now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~ 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I see the concerns regarding the edits made to Catalan independence referendum, 2017 that were reverted here and here citing multiple issues (such as NPOV concerns and replacing referenced content with different information). Looking at the article's talk page, on the surface it looks like the user made multiple edits to it that were not appropriate (1, 2, 3, 4) but some of them contain what appears to be an attempt to explain. "Although https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter (sic) and Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, this accusation is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences and abnormal activities" - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to explain, but it clearly looks like this user is driven to edit here and by a single-purpose. ~Oshwah~ 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Let us give them more rope then before blocking indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - You're welcome, and I agree - give him enough rope; the tiger will show its stripes and the obvious will come to light if the user's intentions aren't to build an encyclopedia :-). ~Oshwah~ 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) I am not expecting that https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter shares my point of view. It is obvious his ideology and his intentions. But, unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter, I am a witness. And I wish I could find articles for half of the things I saw!

But anyways, almost all of my references are excerpts from... UNIONIST MEDIA to keep it more objective and neutral!!! Who knows what would have happened if I had used pro-independence articles! Btw, would https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter dare to write this article just with pro-independence information?

Never mind, let's focus and let me explain my points in more detail:

Like https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Crystallizedcarbon says, he's right when he says "like the video of an officer hit with a chair". But that policeman is one of the 12 wounded policemen reported by the Catalan Health Service. Besides, the man who threw that chair was arrested.

Moreover, there is another video of a policeman bitten during a charge and another one of civilians throwing stones at a armoured van leaving Sant Carles de la Rapita (after causing 40 wounded people), which has no consequences for those policemen health. Anyway, what I was trying to point out is the incongruence when saying it does add up to 431 (like the Minister said), especially when there were reported just 39 that night by the same Minister(so it makes nearly 400 new injured during that night), and above all, because there are no clinical reports beyond the 12 policemen attended by the Catalan Health Service, no further documentation, just speculation of newspaper in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the coordinator of all the police bodies during the Referendum, Mr Diego Pérez de los Cobos, said "the police was received with direct violent actions", but "there were only 5 arrests". Sorry, it is impossible to believe that after 431 wounded policemen, there were just 5 people arrested... And I have to say that, obviously, it is likely it could be more wounded people, but the ones who were not attended by any hospital were because they had superficial injuries. And that applies to both sides! (policemen + civilian, not just policemen).

UPDATE: On the 11/jan/2018, the Spanish Police (Policia Nacional) sent to the Permanent Instructional Court number 7 of Barcelona an internal report saying that there were 40 injured antiriot policemen, the most severe suffering from a sprain of wrist and a broken finger. 5 policemen were recommended to have off days.

That makes a range between 12 and 40 injured policemen. Far from the 431 policemen that Misplaced Pages is currently reporting.

Like I said, this article is clearly biased on the Spanish point of view and it has generated indignation among Catalans. And what's more, when you try to expose the other point of view, the censorship appears, as usual in Spain, and that's what https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter is trying to do.

Please, keep in mind the report about lack of plurality and indepenence of the TV collaborators in the public RTVE for the whole 2014... and it keeps working like this and then it was extended to the private TV). Therefore, please, expect overreactions from the Spanish side, as they are not used to dealing with contrary opinions, and that's why they struggle and reject it, by calling the Catalan information as "biased", "sensationalist" and other words that I will not say.

Long time ago, I wrote a neutral NPOV in which I explained the difference between legality and legitimacy of the referendum. And the reason why Spain grabs legality and why Catalonia grabs legitimicy... but you did not publish it, either.

Please, accept my apologies because my English is not that good and I try to explain it the best I can. Besides, I am a newbie on Misplaced Pages, and I struggle. For this reason, there are so many edits. Please, take into account just the last version!

Another point highlighted by by https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Crystallizedcarbon: Regarding the issue "the Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against": It is true that the Ministry instructed it, but you forgot to say that it has been reported that the Mayor of Barcelona was going to sue the Spanish police for some sexual improper behaviour. This is relevant and you forgot it... You are biasing the article by omitting why the Mayor of Barcelona made that accusation!!! Furthermore, it is false that the case of Marta Torrecillas (the woman of the broken fingers) was found far-fetched by an investigation, but because Marta Torrecillas modified her statement the following day, as I have reported several times. But this case is one of the most important points that the Spanish unionism use to discredit the Referendum, so that's why they omit that rectification, and Misplaced Pages is working like a unionism abettor unintentionally (bias). So, please, modify the current explanation on Misplaced Pages, since it is deceiving. If you like it, put it under the heading of "Other controversies" and provide the full explanation, or else, just remove it, as you are not explaining all the wounded people, individually.

With reference to the elections results (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Crystallizedcarbon), it is relevant to give an interpretation of the results, as readers are not experts on Catalan nor Spanish elections. It must reflect that:

1) The pro-independence parties confirmed the majority of seats. 2) The Spanish ruling party was severely punished, becoming the seventh (and last) party in votes and seats, achieving just 4 seats in the Catalan Parliament out of 135 (insufficient to constitute a Parliamentary Group). 3) Although the Spanish government claimed the Catalan Referendum had no guarantees, had several irregularities and, even, people voted several times, the number of pro-independence votes in the Catalan elections (that took place on the 21/12/2017) was greater than in the Referendum.

Please, notice I gave you a reputed British reference..

I would also like to point out that this article is full of speculation. Being investigated or suing is a National Sport in Spain. There are lots of reciprocal accusations, and there will be more in the future. Besides, it has been the stategy of the Spanish Government since the beginning of the Catalan affair, as there is no separation of powers in Spain (10/12 of the Tribunal Constitucional judges are appointed by politicians, for example).

And what's more, until the judge makes a decision, you are reporting just an specualtion. And this article has plenty of that. Under investigation: Mr Trapero, Mrs Colau, the police for sexual harassment, politicians, judges malfeasance and some you are not including... Please, remove it until you find real evidence, it looks like a tabloid, instead of an objective article.

Finally, keep in mind that those biases and speculations have been on this website over 3.5 months, and the most visits took place in the following days after the event. You should have been more objective, but in fact you have been releasing a very biased Spanish unionist point of view for long, enhancing sensationalismt, delivering opinions and no contrasted information, providing speculations and inaccuracies. Please, beware of that next time.

1. http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171025/432345126624/detenido-silla-guardia-civil-sant-joan-de-vilatorrada.html
2. https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/Interior-acabaron-votantes-formaron-parapetos_0_727927956.html
3. http://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/Policia-identificacion-antidisturbios-desplegados-Barcelona_0_728277752.html
4. https://www.ara.cat/societat/Camel-Lobo-Cobra-Jaguar-nom-policia-1-O-Barcelona_0_1941405993.html
5. https://www.media.cat/2014/11/06/informe-l%E2%80%99espiral-del-silenci-a-analisi/
6. https://www.ara.cat/en/Only-independence-Spains-TV-Catalonias_0_1916208565.html
7. http://cadenaser.com/ser/2017/09/10/politica/1505067486_613847.html
8. http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171002/431742168473/ada-colau-denuncia-agresiones-sexuales-policia-1-o.html
9. http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171003/431770520587/marta-torrecillas-roto-dedos-inflamacion-referendum-1-o.html
10. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/dec/21/catalonia-voters-results-regional-election-spain-live
11. https://es.wikipedia.org/Tribunal_Constitucional_(Espa%C3%B1a)

Those to whom "my ideology and my intentions" are "obvious" probably should get less rope. Today I was already accused in being Slovakian nationalist, Spanish nationalist, someone who can not see obvious consensus, someone who does not speak English, and someone who must be deadmin for behavior unbecoming for administrator. To be honest, this is becoming too much for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling names to editors is out place and insistence on it should have whomever does that blocked, I have gone through that myself (and worse). Now I have this article on my watchlist and seen how just having the parliament of Catalonia mentioned at the beginning of the article was a struggle and a torment, despite being one of the five Ws, which eventually led me to largely abandon this article out of tediousness.

So I have not looked through all the details of this dispute, but I have seen deceptive edits summaries and misrepresentation of sources in this article that I have pointed other times, which honours the claims of Edgarmm81,like this gratuituous removal edit, or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself, polishing it next.

The editor's behaviour is coarse, that is true, but his/her claims in form (but also in content) seem to be well-grounded and constructive. A didactic approach applies, since s/he does not seem to be familiar with the rules of the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not defending the article at all, and, as a matter of fact, have absolutely no affiliation with any side of the conflict. I just seriously doubt that Edgarmm81 can achieve anything in this way, and that they are willing to learn. For the time being, they are just a single-purpose account, they do not have any other edits to Misplaced Pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter, you are scared because I am unveiling the lies that the Spanish Government has been systematically spreading. And what's more, it is so weird that you permit those manipulations and, now, you feel so offended, nervous and trying to censor and boycott my work... even though I provide clear unionist references... Like I said, this article on Misplaced Pages has caused a huge indignation among the Catalans, because of its bias, partiality and lack of objectivity, and that's why I opened this account, to shed light on it and correct all the misinformation and manipulation. By the way, I wish I hadnt had to do it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs)

Ok, the user basically says themselves they are not here to contribute to the creation of encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. Maybe this editor confuses Misplaced Pages with a forum. A small example are these 50 consecutive edits on the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 talk page. Or maybe thinks it's a propaganda platform: see this edit made a little over an hour ago, despite what is being discussed here, that I have undone --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, absolutely not. It is actually pointing to the deficencies and problems raised by the present, poor state of the article, both related to the statements made and its sources, which is actually a systemic issue, related to WP:RS. As an informed person, I would not come to this article to get an accurate picture of the events, it is full of noise, starting from the very lead section, unbalanced and greatly pumped up in order to, I would say, condition the reader's view, like attempting to charge the first sentences with 'illegal' and a string of legal considerations, discussed here, for one.

This concern for keeping pumping the lead, left the lead section swollen, which I pointed here, as editors like BallenaBlanca kept adding details, highlighting details in the same direction, I should say. Also this insistent edit by BallenaBlanca (note the deceptive edit summary) after I corrected the misrepresentation of source (afterwards reverted by me again), does him/her little favour.

Edgarmm81 does not know well how WP operates, but that is not a big issue, it is in the spirit of the WP to keep learning and building up. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL You are showing biased information by not giving all the information. Why do not you show this edit of mine, where I explained why I unmade the other edit?

Also, you said "or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself" A veteran user like you? Do you stay so calm after saying something similar...? Edits that were original research and referenced with messages on Twitter? For more explanations see

And without taking into account that you have not had the courtesy of pinging me after mentioning me, to give me the possibility to participate in this discussion, which I have seen by chance.

These are good examples of the type of edits / behaviors that other users and I are trying to neutralize.

Anyway, I have the feeling that the discussion is being diverted and that this is not the place to discuss the content of the Misplaced Pages articles. Am I wrong? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca:You are right on pinging (I had still the echo of other discussions with users protesting the use of ping) and your last point, but since you were citing 'neutrality'. On this, you mention above, and your claim, what do you mean? I will not elaborate on your other claims either. Go to the article's or my talk page, if applies, for that. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

72.185.108.110

• 72.185.108.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Going through their contribution history, they seem to be adding unnecessary cruft, removing content, and generally being a nuisance.. Their intention to disrupt couldn't be more clear. Boomer Vial 00:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Those last three items, deleting from one's own talk page, are within the IP's rights. In fact, restoring them was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs Yes, but it gives off an WP:IDHT mentality on the editors part. Especially considering how they keep doing what is getting them warned. It also may be to circumvent a block being given multiple level one warnings, rather in the typical fashion (1, 2, 3, 4im). Boomer Vial 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP's other edits look questionable. But I recommend you strike the complaint about him deleting stuff from his own talk page. That's permissible; it's not "being a nuisance". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be considered a nuisance, taken into account how they are abusing the privledge to remove warnings from their talk page. I stand by what I said. Boomer Vial 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is free to remove warnings from its talk page, and reposting them is disruptive behavior. Concentrate on the questionable content, not on what they are permitted to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who adds a warning to a talk page should probably check the history of the page before adding it anyway. It's better than saying "You can't remove X from your talk page." --Tarage (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortuately, a majority of vandal-fighters do not do so. That, or they are using an semi-automated program that leaves a warning corresponding to the last warning on their talk page. If a warning is removed, it defaults to level one. Even ClueBot NG has this issue. Besides, I never said they cannot remove warnings from their talk page, I was pointing out how they were being generally disruptive and abusing the priviledge to do so. Boomer Vial 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a right, not a privilege. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I still stand by what I said. I used their removal of talk page warnings as an example of probable suspicion that they have a intent to disrupt. Especially given the persistent removing the warnings in such a short time span. Getting back to the point of the reason I filed this. Their edits seem to be, for the most part, questionable to outright disruption. As I said originally, it's clear that building to the encyclopedia is not their intention. Boomer Vial 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Arcarius

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~ 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Misplaced Pages's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible canvasing and meatpuppetry

This has recently been bought to my attention ] with comments like "I signed up to Misplaced Pages -for this, can I influence somehow?" and "Good news, Yair: the article passed editor review! But *just* barely. Still need some editors with knowledge to fill out the article and expand it with info." This was raised here ], which in turn was a response to this ]. The AFD did seem to feature a number of almost inactive or fairly new accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - For sake of clarity here, we're talking about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer, correct? ~Oshwah~ 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought reading the twitter feed would have told yo, it is a resolved AFD here ] however (apart form the fact it was not raised here at the time) it seems like it may still be a possible issue (given some of the comments (on the twitter feed) with the article Antisemitism in the Labour Party. But it seems it may well be a wider issue then one article or AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slatersteven - Ah, thank you. I saw the twitter feed but got distracted and didn't get to read through the whole thing. I'm going through the AFD now... ~Oshwah~ 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The incident first came to light on the AfD page with a noticed uptick in votes and brought up by Tontag. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• (ecx3)A bit pointless bringing this up, the article survived AFD due to policy based arguments not because of numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A, It was no consensus.

B, As I said above this may not be a resolved issue of canvasing, it may still in fact be having an impact.

C, The "threat" of (for example) making changes to the article to better reflect "the facts" means that there is still the possibility of disruption. It also seems that it is not occurring on just the one AFD, thus is (clearly) an ongoing issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus is equivalent to keep for AfD purposes, so that argument is irrelevant. If you have an issue with the way the discussion was closed, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to discuss it with the closing admin, and then to take it to WP:DELREV if that doesn't resolve the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to DS's claim that it was a vote for keep (it was not)due to policy based arguments (in fact it was made clear both sides had valid points). Also this is a wider issue then the one AFD (as I also say in my reply to DS). IN fact it was (as I think it should be clear from my OP) that I am more concerned about further potential disruption in article spaceSlatersteven (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Oshwah was referring to this newer tweet; this twitter feed has once again announced an AFD in hopes of influencing it. If there is suddenly a major upswing of keep !votes, we'll know why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I thought this was about the news article which was brought up on the article talk page, obviously I've missed something Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• All that really shows is E.M.Gregory watches this Yair Rosenberg's twitter feed, saw his piece, and decided to troll everyone at the talk page by calling them POV editors -- with that as "evidence". I am more concerned about the AFD process being disrupted on more than one occasion by a twitter handle.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• How is your above comment not a violation of the FIVE PILLARS? We get it, you don't like EM Gregory and you have a bias, but your constant hounding of him and behavior has got to stop. Sir Joseph 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph throwing out the word bias again, I see. May you describe my bias please? I am unfortunately unaware of it; my apparent shear dislike for Gregory (which I was also unaware of) has blinded me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with having a bias, we all have one and it's real silly to say you don't have one. But your comment did not come across as something neutral and AGF. Maybe I misread it but it seemed to me to be a little off. Sir Joseph 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So how would you have described E.M.Gregory's comment about "POV editors making Wilipedia look bad"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with it 100%. There are POV editors and they make Misplaced Pages look bad. In this case, (both Neuer and Antisemitism) we have clear notable people or subjects that warrant 100% inclusion. There are certain topics in Misplaced Pages that for some reason or another, many people want to hush up. I also don't get why you're asking me this. I'm not the one who called someone "trolling." Sir Joseph 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Really so having 2 articles that mention something is "hushing it up"?. I am asking you because you have tried to defend a blatant attack on other editors. Oh and I do agree it was trolling, what else is linking to an inflammatory article (on an articles talk page) and using it to attack other edds without actually making an constructive suggestion as to how to use the linked article not trolling?

Not only does it violate rules about making PA's but also ones about what article talk pages are for, and maybe even a few other rules for good measure. It was nothing but a disruptive act of soapboxing. Perhaps we need to ask admins if this was a rules violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1.) It is entirely routine to mention the fact that an article has received media attention on the talk page of the article. 2.) It is absurd to suppose that we can prevent Tablet (magazine) or other media from covering our editing process. Nor can we prevent such coverage from inspiring people to become Misplaced Pages editors. Such inspiration is not meatpuppetry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not "entirely routing" to attack other editors o POV pushing and bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute on article talk pages. And there are things we can do to mitigate the effect of of Wiki canvasing. That (by the way) is my main concern here, to mitigate the potential effects of of wiki canvasing (for example is there a link between the author of the tablet article, and any edds who have edited those pages, and if so should that user get a ban?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are talking about a man Yair Rosenberg, with over 53,000 twitter followers who writes for a popular magazine, Tablet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:TheGracefulSlick certainly does, as User:Sir Joseph writes above, have political biases that lead her to behave towards me - and towards other editors with whom she disagrees - in an aggressive, WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.
• Here she follows me to other users talk pages just to be gratuitously nasty, belittling, and assume bad faith (I found this because she pinged me) : ., presumably to "improve" her stats at AfD. She certainly knows how to strike a comment properly .
• Here: TGS follows an editor with whom she regularly disagrees on terrorism-related AfDs to an arcane American history article, a topic she rarely if ever, and makes a false assertion: "On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage." In fact, the editor she accused had specifically brought to the page and flagged at AfD an INDEPTH 2013 article in the Saturday Evening Post. To GracefulSlick, the point often seems to be "winning," even by means of making false assertions that appear to discredit fellow editors.
• Here: she was canvassed by an editor to come to his defense at ANI, and she complied, accusing me of being "someone who 'may' have it out for you." In fact, it was my third comment in that thread; my first two were defending the work of the accused editor.
• Here she makes a series of gratuitous attacks on and complaints about fellow editors, here: ; ; , , , here the slurs and innuendo are about a page that I found at AfD and almost completely rewrote , she then improperly changed her iVote to a "comment". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• May I remind you the last time you made these accusations (at an ANI thread for your behavior) on the same flimsy "evidence", the admin quickly disregarded your frivolous claims. Taking diffs out of context doesn't prove I have a political bias; it does, however, prove you handle your own personal issues with editors by trying to deceive others. Now, if you haven't noticed, this is a thread on canvassing and meatpuppetry. If you want to file something against me, I encourage you to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is entirely unsurprising. In my 12+ years in the IP area, canvassing from the pro Israeli editors have virtually been the norm in the AfDs Huldra (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  This AfD diff provides the same Twitter URL of the OP here.  I searched for "can I influence" and I don't find the quote at the URL.  Why are we looking at off-Wiki links anyway?  Beyond answering that question, the other thing actionable I see here is User:TheGracefulSlick "encouraging" a self-WP:BOOMERANG, which given the 2nd link in the OP, , TheGracefulSlick has been outed for accusations of WP:CANVASSING.  The diff itself also has the personal attack recorded in the edit summary.  Possibly ignore the accusation along with an admonishment not to stir up the community, would suffice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unscintillating, I appreciate your concern, but I have never been outed and C. W. Gilmore never accused me of canvassing. Please read and understand the thread before making such statements. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Concern?  Ok by me.  Just remember that the next time you go "encouraging" an ANI filing against yourself, this episode will be in the record.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

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

User:KingRomero14 appears to be an account purely for non-constructive edits. They were blocked last month for it, yet continue to edit in the same manner. For example, this edit here is them just randomly adding an event that has even been mentioned will not occur this year by a WP:RS. Looking at their edit history I see almost nothing that they have posted that wasn't immediately reverted. - Galatz 14:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. --NeilN 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

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

This is an interaction ban violation by C. W. Gilmore, as he is linking to my edits on an article I created in that post. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And you just commented here immediately after he did. I think he did indeed violate the interaction ban, and you are skirting very close to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I had three edit conflicts, I did not respond to him, I was commenting on what you wrote, and given I created the article in question I think I have reason to comment on the issue raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, responding that you can't participate in a discussion because of an interaction ban is not a violation of the interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How is linking to my edits not a violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact the IBAN Policy says, "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly" I'm pretty sure linking to me edits on an article are covered by that Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

He was simply stating that he couldn't participate further in making contributions to an article because of the interaction ban - that's not a violation of an interaction ban to say this (in fact, it's good that he disclosed that so that others understood). He wasn't violating the interaction ban by attempting to actively interact with you. ~Oshwah~ 15:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How is linking to my edits like this not an violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Linking to your contributions can be a violation of an interaction ban, sure - but it depends on the situation and the context. In this situation, I wouldn't flag this as "encroachment over the line of scrimmage here" - he was just saying, "hey, I have an interaction ban and he's made edits here, so I need to back off". That's perfectly reasonable to do - he's trying to honor the sanction. Give the guy a little credit here :-) ~Oshwah~ 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reverted my edit and my Talking Page mistake . My intention was to tell the other editor the reason I could not bring up the issues about the Antisemitism in the Labour Party as I wanted to stay away. Slatersteven had previously urged me to do more editing closer to the edge of the IBAN and I had declined, it was my attempt to state again, why I could not get too near things or participate more actively. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that this is a violation. In fact, I remember previously saying something to that effect. Reyk _YO! 15:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines, drop this report now and walk away, or you'll be blocked for violating the IBAN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• You really don't get how IBANS work do you Sarek, reporting violations are an exemption, or do you need to block me and then have to unblock me again like the last time? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be the "bad guy", but I agree with SarekOfVulcan here. The discussion and over-reaction to a simple statement is going way beyond and into IBAN territory on your end than with what C. W. Gilmore intended to do in the first place. Let's just step back, understand that it's okay and that he didn't step over the line, and lets just move on peacefully and take this as a learning experience - okay? There's no need to be frustrated or upset :-) ~Oshwah~ 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have precisely zero expertise or authority here, but I feel compelled to speak up. As a wise man once said, de minimis non curat Misplaced Pages. I have watched this little imbroglio from afar, and I have certainly seen times when I thought Mr. Gilmore was in the wrong. This is not one of them. Happy Friday all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 weeks per bad-faith IBAN report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good block- Sadly, I think this was correct. It's a pity DS couldn't manage to drop it. Reyk _YO! 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

As multiple users (including the first-person singular) have opined the block is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED, this should be reopened, or a new thread should be started. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Thus, you are clearly involved, demonstrated by the text you highlighted. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

...right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your previous involvement is not "minor", and it most certainly "speaks to bias", as you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction". It baffles me that you would highlight that text, as it speaks to the very essence of WP:INVOLVED. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Minor" is irrelevant. "Purely in an administrative role" is the governing clause there. It wasn't the "same" infraction, and it hardly "speaks to bias", since I've blocked both of them for poking at the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Minor is irrelevant"? Are you fucking kidding me? It's part of the text that you highlighted as evidence of your innocence. "Minor is irrelevant". Yeah, he really did say that. Wow. Just wow. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering it's on the wrong side of an "or", yes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, shit, you got me there! "It's on the wrong side of an or"! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A second administrator has agreed with the block though. I for one also agree with it. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a hundred administrators agree with it. WP:INVOLVED is quite clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a bad block. Period. It prevents nothing and is further questionable given that Sarek is involved, despite his poor attempts at convincing us otherwise. It's also not his first poor block on this user. Nihlus 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

An admin should've instantly closed the thread as no violation and then went to DS's talkpage to state why it wasn't a violation ..... instead he was allowed to question it here and unfortunately came across as not being able to drop the stick (a stick he may not of had to begin with), The block was piss poor .... A 2 day block sure he can live with that anyone can but a 2 week block all for questioning why it wasn't a violation is heavy handed to say the least. –Davey2010 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

When a user nibbles at the edge of their IBAN, it's bad faith, and they have no one to blame but themselves when they get blocked for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

His first block for violating the IBAN was a week. I blocked him for disruptive editing for 1 week in December. After that, I blocked him for an IBAN vio for 2 weeks, but was overturned after ANI discussion. This one was the same length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Except that this one is going to wind up being overturned too. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Struck my original mischaracterization of that block. My apologies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it that way I just saw it as him trying to get answers but then again without sounding disrespectful I don't really know him like others here. –Davey2010 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've started a site ban proposal. Appears to be a net negative, looking at his block log, with long term disruption coming from him. !dave 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC) revised 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It might be best to hold off on that until his block has expired, and see if he does better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Undone. !dave 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block - should have just closed the report. Regardless of what Sarek says above he is involved. His previous block of DS was overturned, which he disagreed with, and appears to be out to get DS now. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It appears that DS is actively looking for violations, which is just begging for trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Right, which means he hasn't done anything wrong yet. Therefore, this block is ridiculous and the fact that Sarek is wasting the community's time is further problematic. Nihlus 22:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Nihlus, please actually read the thread before posting in it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • You're in no position to be telling others what to do or to be assuming anything about what they have done up until now. I advise you stop digging. Nihlus 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Seriously! There's clearly no consensus for this block, and in all likelihood, consensus is against it. Why force someone to overturn it? Just unblock him already. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Agree. Admins are supposed to help prevent disruption, not actively cause it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is very quickly turning into a clusterfuck, if it hasn't already. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You think? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• (ec)Gilmore is saying "I can't talk about it because I'm under an IBAN". Darkness Shines is claiming "I can't talk about it" constitutes talking about it, is trying to get Gilmore blocked for saying that, and won't take no for an answer. Gaming an IBAN to attack your opponent seems a worse violation of it than merely mentioning that it exists. I think an uninvolved admin would have closed this the same way. Reyk _YO! 23:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. The fact is that an uninvolved administrator didn't close it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That argument amounts to wikilawyering. DS appears to be nibbling at the edge of the IBAN. That's a bad-faith activity. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Gilmore acted in good faith and DS reported him to ANI for it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Lepricavark (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wish an uninvolved admin had closed it. As it stands Sarek gleefully reapplied another bad block that the community overturned a few weeks ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have always been a strong proponent of the "talk before block" approach -- and that was followed successfully here. Three seperate editors explained to DS the reality of the situation; DS refused to accept it. Regardless of whether Sarek was involved or not, the end result would have been the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, and even if it's true, there's still the issue of a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:INVOLVED going unsanctioned. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

While I generally disagree that this was an involved block, I have to recommend Sarek lay off the constant replies to DS. It is not improving the situation in the slightest. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "constant replies" is a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This could all have been avoided if DS had communicated with his most trusted admin via email instead of bringing it up out in the open. And also if DS weren't actively looking for violations. What he should be doing is pretending the other guy does not exist. If one is in an IBAN, it must be fully embraced or it won't work. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like he doesn't have a trusted admin, based on his talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If not, then he's painted himself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It also could have been avoided if SarekOfVulacn had observed WP:INVOLVED, which he instead chose to ignore. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe I hate to say it, but this drum you are beating isn't helping. Several admins have commented on this, and nearly all of them are in agreement. I very much doubt you are going to her this ban overturned. Lessened maybe, but that's about it. I don't think bludgeoning things as you are is going to help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "bludgeoning" anything. If Sarek owned up to his infraction and fixed his mistake, and then I continued to berate him, that would be bludgeoning. For now, at least, he's refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

2 admins have commented, and one was involved. Also you’ll rarely see an admin side with a mere editor in a dispute with another admin - especially not an editor with a block log. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you two are bludgeoning, and it's becoming obnoxious. We get it. You think he was involved. You've said as much about 10 times now. You clearly are not going to get the apology you want, so why not step back and let other people look into it? Replying to every damn statement he makes with "Y U NO ADMIT WRONG" is not helpful. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't get the first thing. I don't give a good rat's ass about an "apology", and I don't "think" he was involved; I showed, citing policy, that he was involved. Now you're bludgeoning me, so knock it off. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand what that word means do you. You are not helping your case, I hope you know that. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• "you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction"" - this does not mean additional blocks for the same infraction are WP:INVOLVED violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • LOL. Sure it doesn't. Sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, the policy is very specific that that is what it means. I'm sorry you don't understand that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This isn't rocket science. Once you've blocked a user inappropriately, you don't block the user again, especially not for the same offense for which you originally applied an inappropriate block. You can lawyer until you're blue in the face; this was a revenge block, plain and simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Has anything changed since I NAC re-closed this thread as "more heat than light" and someone (I haven't look at the history) re-opened it? I don't think anything has changed at all. Basically the same things are being repeated: the same people are saying the same stuff and being responded to by the same people who responded before. It seems extremely unlikely that Sarek is going to undo his block as a result of this discussion, or that Joefromrandb is going to change his opinion that Sarek was INVOLVED. Darkness Shines has filed an unblock request, so an uninvolved admin can weigh in on it. If anyone really, really feels the need to keep expounding on this, there's a thread on User talk:Darkness Shines.I would recommend that someone, preferably an admin, re-close this before someone says something that will get them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards