Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:52, 6 June 2011

• 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

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply, Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to OhanaUnited's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Misplaced Pages is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, thank you for asking for a third opinion and considering these comments. And I admire the fact that you are trying to protect new users from being slapped with sockpuppeting allegations -- it seems like an unfriendly process to subject someone to, and no way to be introduced to Misplaced Pages.

Please reconsider your harsh words to betsy. She merits assumption of good faith. If we are rude to one another, and contributing becomes painful, we will lose our thoughtful and experienced and devoted contributors - even more worrying than losing new users.

I Agree with Heimstern and Demiurge above: A comment about character assassination is rarely appropriate, when working with a known and respected user. You could simply decline a request or point out that similar requests have been made recently. Betsy noted below that many of your comments were helpful, and apologized for not preparing the request better. While you explained above your worries about an 'unknowing SPI tag team', I think you owe her an apology in return for the assumptions you made about her. – SJ + 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Misplaced Pages space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" . betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Late-edit note: The foregoing was discussed here, with the broader issue discussed in at least three other places.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed. Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Misplaced Pages, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, other checkusers have commented publicly that particular highly-prolific sockmasters operating in the same topic area where Red Stone Arsenal ("RSA") made his contributions can't be expected to be caught out by our current tools. And progressively more sophisticated methods certainly do become available to evade checkuser detection the more resources someone has.

Since we've seen such a large upsurge of these day-use accounts (RSA edited for only three days) in this topic area lately, it's hard to escape the conclusion that someone has a new tech-toy they're breaking in. These accounts restrict their editing to short bursts or just a few days overall before moving on to the next account, to make it much less likely that behavioral evidence can be pieced together. We can't be certain with our current tools, of course, but we'll never see an account that quacks more loudly in this particular way than we've seen here, with the Red Stone Arsenal account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be struck-through?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Strike-through accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strike-through accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that betsy didn't know how to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's not obvious to me at all. I see Ohana asking for input so that he can get further perspective. – SJ + 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I've just discovered something about how the SPI user interface works that's extremely relevant here. I don't have time right now to post it, but I'll do so later today. I will just say for the moment that what I've found demonstrates that Betsy did absolutely nothing wrong in any of this, absolutely nothing at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Betsy Devine I am traveling around small places with not much internet, but thanks to OhioStandard for great kindness and to everyone who looked at my request. Taking the advice of OhanaUnited and others, I will now be closing this account I used under my real name. I did so because I thought such accountability was of benefit to the project, but I'm a bit sick of benefit to Misplaced Pages right now. I am accountable to myself, and I know I filed the SPI in good faith, and so does everybody else who looked into the matter, except Mbz1 and Broccolo. Fun times for them! Good luck with those admin tools, OhanaUnited, you do a heckuva job listening to third opinions. Which way to the door that says "Right to vanish"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try the instructions at WP:CLEANSTART. Your situation is exactly why we have that option. I don't blame your decision, I don't have the courage to even try to edit under my own name. -- Atama頭 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, I believe, Atama. And it's not Betsy who needs the clean start, it's every admin who saw all this and turned the other way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what OhanaUnited (one of the harder-working SPI clerks out there) was supposed to have done differently here, given the system that we currently have. I mean, is he expected to ignore it and let the accusations get further out-of-hand (which probably would have happened sans the above "third opinion" request)? I mean, not to disrespect anyone, but this seems like shooting the whistleblower than anything else. –MuZemike 08:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying something like "Please check the archives in the future to be sure the check you're requesting hasn't already been done" instead of making a groundless accusation of character assassination, maybe? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That would not have helped in this case. In the earlier SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal and AFolkSingersBeard, the closing clerk, HelloAnyong, commented "I don't really think they're the same. Having said that, I've opened another case regarding Red Stone Arsenal". As it happens, Betsy beat HelloAnyong to the post in opening the SPI. But if the Check User clerk felt concerned enough to support a second SPI regarding RSA, it is clearly inappropriate for another clerk to issue a warning to Betsy for opening this. RolandR (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An undisclosed culprit

If we were to ask ten user's who aren't really familiar with the SPI process to go to wp:spi and initiate a request for an investigation of the Red Stone Arsenal account that Betsy filed her SPI about, I'd wager that not one of them would see anything in the process to tell them they were filing a a duplicate request. Please take a look at the wp:spi page. There's nothing there at all to indicate that one should begin by scrolling to the bottom of that long and very visually "busy" page, to use the green "search all cases and archives" bar there first. There's no indication, that you should do so before you use the prominent "Start or continue an SPI case here" gray bar that you first see as you read and scroll through the page, in other words.

If you try that, try opening an SPI on Red Stone Arsenal without being aware of the green bar at the bottom of the page, or the need to use it (please don't hit "save", if you do try a test) you may or may not see an obscure notice that says you're filing a second report. If you enter, as seems reasonable,

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Red Stone Arsenal

You won't see any such notice. The page you land on will say you're filing a first report. Sure, if you're savvy enough to just enter,

User:Red Stone Arsenal

after first clearing the edit field of the pre-existing "Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER" text, you'll briefly see an indication that it's a second report you're initiating, but how many people would know to do that, or would know that "second report" means "duplicate"? And even if you do, that text just flashes past briefly, before the page autoscrolls to an edit window. Betsy didn't do anything wrong; she wasn't even careless or negligent. The interface just sucks eggs.

It presents far too much information, and the dual purpose of the page to present open case information along with its case-initiation feature is just hopelessly confusing if you don't already know how to use it. It needs to be changed to prevent this kind of debacle from ever arising again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All I have heard the past several years was how submitting sock puppet cases sucks and nothing on how to improve it; the same was with when it was separately as WP:SSP (suspected sock puppets) and WP:RFCU (requests for CheckUser). Nobody seemed to try and offer any improvements on the process, even when it came to requesting a new bot to replace the broken User:SPCUClerkbot, and when somebody did, the entire community jumped on that user. Frankly, I'm not sure as to whether it may be a good idea to scrap the entire sock puppet process and leave it all to ANI or what else to do. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. But the immediate issue here, which OS was addressing, was the unwarranted warning to Betsy about allegedly filing a tendentious SPI. OS has shown definitively that her statement that she was unaware of previous reports is credible and in fact very likely. Acting on good faith alone, even setting to one side the fact that several very experienced editors also believe RSA to be a sockpuppet, the warning to Betsy should never have been issued. Nearly all of the response to this "request for a third opinion" have agreed on this, and the warning should be withdrawn without any further delay. RolandR (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't think Betsy did anything wrong, at least nothing that wasn't a simple mistake. -- Atama頭 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure she appreciates the support. Would you have a look at why it's important to strike-through OhanaUnited's comments by community consensus under wp:rpa despite his evident refusal to apologize? I'd be grateful for opinions there.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and move to closure

I would like to thank OhioStandard so much for his actions to defend my good name, especially since I have been traveling and can hardly post, and I really appreciate the time people have taken to comment here and on my talk page. I also appreciate a lot being made to feel less stupid about not having understood how to look for earlier SPI cases about Red Stone Arsenal. Maybe that would be a good tutorial to add to SPI, especially if the clerk expects people already know it. And following some good advice I also just archived the most insulting bit from my talk page. Furthermore, Fences and Windows very kindly added a notation to the SPI thread itself expressing the consensus here that I had not done wrong and should not have been rebuked for the SPI. It would have been nice if Ohana redacted the claim but Misplaced Pages has bigger problems to solve than that. Thanks once again and I don't think any admin intervention is needed except maybe to close the thread. betsythedevine (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OhanaUnited

I applaud Betsy's generosity in suggesting that this thread be closed. One thing still needs to be said, however, that has not been addressed or even mentioned so far: OhanaUnited opened this thread under the title, "third opinion requested". But based on his actual behavior, it appears that the user was correct who commented that it would have been more candidly entitled, "I have no intention of listening to the third opinion I've requested". To try to be as fair as possible, posting the allegations in the first place, while wrong, was perhaps an understandable overreaction made out of frustration. But Ohana dropped out of the thread he started here very quickly, right after the second time he was asked to strike through his comments. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he saw a different result emerging than he evidently hoped for, and instead of taking responsibility for that, just disappeared to avoid having to do so.

Instead of taking responsibility, he let this go on when he could have put a graceful end to the problem at any time. He could have simply admitted his mistake, as many editors on multiple pages asked him to do as the process of exonerating the user he'd wronged wound its difficult course. Among those who made that request was User:Sj aka Samuel Klein, both an admin and − as an elected member of the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees − one of the most highly trusted participants we have here. He took the unusual step of also posting his request to OhanaUnited's talk page. Like the others, myself included, who asked Ohana to either apologize, strike through his comments, or both, Sj received no reply whatever.

I'm not going to make any proposal regarding OhanaUnited, but I do wish to state for the record my strong disapproval of his initial accusation, and more especially my much stronger disdain for his ongoing refusal to acknowledge and correct the trouble his mistaken accusation caused for both Betsy and for the larger community. It's possible, of course, that he chose to avoid the problem because it just seemed too difficult or stressful to deal with: I can well understand that it might. But it's also been difficult and stressful for its wholly innocent victim, and this is not how we expect trusted members of the project to conduct themselves. If anyone sees fit to dispute that assertion, they're welcome to do so. But unless asked to do so directly, I don't intend to continue the discussion, and would otherwise be very glad to see it archive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea, for gosh sakes! You are still editing the SPI initial page, which is totally meaningless at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this is fourth time now that Collect has posted just below one of my comments in different threads here to make belittling remarks.

He evidently needs that tea himself: It might be just the thing to help him deal more productively with his irritation at my part in introducing content he strongly dislikes into one of his favorite articles just a couple of hours ago. Besides, my having updated the permalink from the Red Stone Arsenal / Nocal100 SPI case to this thread was helpful, rather than otherwise. This thread is referred to there not just in the only sentence I've contributed to the case, but also by admin Fences & Windows comments there, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat

If this user really is the owner of the blog linked to from his user page, then he and User:Jinxmchue are one and the same. Wasn't Jinxmchue banned, IIRC, for a death threat? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I can tell. Also what is this complaint regarding, specifically? Protonk (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry. For some reason I remember Jinxmchue being banned for making a death threat, and the revision had been deleted, though that may have been someone else. I never actually got into a dispute or even had contact with this user, just saw his name on talk pages frequently and looked at his userpage. Then, I just followed the trail from the domain of the broken link on his page. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Jinx hasn't edited in 3 1/2 years, and your first edit was just a few months ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So? What I was trying to say was that the person behind the Jinxmchue account, (NAME DELETED), may have created a new account, a long-undiscovered sockpuppet. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        • So, which ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi IP96, please do not post editors' real names even on ANI when they are not publicly disclosed on the editors' pages. I have removed the name above and replaced with (NAME DELETED) and requested a RevDel (which has also been completed). Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I deleted an edit which contained personal information about an editor. Do not post information like that. It will not help your case (whatever that is) and will result in your being blocked from wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. Are they the same person? If they are the same person, shouldn't some action be taken? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't shooting the messenger. Posting personal information about editors is strictly forbidden and normally would result in a block without warning. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• As for the original complaint, do you have any record of the ban discussion? Like I said above I don't see a block log that reflects a ban. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor who is not blocked, banned or sanctioned is allowed to retire and come back using another name. I do not know if this is the case here, but it would not matter. TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

10 May 2004 - Commodore Sloat first edit (still active as of last week)

Has had several blocks - none since 2008

24 Sep 2005 - Jinxmchue first edit

02 Dec 2007 - Jinxmchue last edit

Had a couple of short blocks - no bans that I can see

20 Dec 2010 - 96.26.213.146 first edit

02 Jun 2011 - 96.26.213.146 talks like he's been around a lot longer("IIRC")

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's just an odd coincidence that two Misplaced Pages users (with wildly divergent views) used the same URL for their blogs. Commodore Sloat added the blog link to his userpage in *2005*; The Internet Archive has a snapshot from February 2006, showing the blog as it looked then. You'll immediately recognize that that is not the same blog that is there now. Further, a post on the new blog indicates that Jinx McHue moved his blog to that domain in December 2010. There is no connection. Horologium (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, his real name was listed, his logs are listed, he is accused of sockpuppetry, and it is insinuated he should be banned. With all of this trash talking of Commodore Sloat, methinks I will drop a note on his talk page, maybe giving him a chance to actually defend himself. Wait, this was done by 96.26.213.146, right? NOT. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive-bys seldom issue warnings. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Once Commodore Sloat has a chance to see this thread, assuming Horologium's correct, I am going to make sure I cut it from the archives. This defamation of character by 96.26.213.146 has no place on WP. Irresponsible posting, dude. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your threat to "cut it from the archives" is out of line, and your "defamation of character" comment is pretty close to being a legal threat. "Knock it off" yourself, drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And what user ID have you been using since your last previous edit, 5 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> or something. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) I know, sorry, this just ticks me off how this can be tossed around without any consideration for some user not even bothering people. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What connection do you have to the wronged party in this case? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. OK, so I thought you were doing the right thing by looking into this, but obviously you just like stirring up things (as everyone knows). So, Bugs, what relation do you have to 96.26.213.146? And why are you trying to lay this socking on Commodore Sloat? --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with two drive-by IP's making various accusations at each other, meanwhile refusing to edit under their normal user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm not a drive-by obviously (it's a dynamic). I haven't had an account for about 2+ years. I minded my own business and eventually grew tired of users who violated WP:CIVIL as a method of power and then claimed ignorance. Here we have an unjustified claim of socking on a very public board, and it's getting swept under the carpet. In the meantime, this named user is left in the dark. Not good. (And of course I lose my internet in the middle of typing this thereby giving me a new IP, great) --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things often sit here for awhile, as admins study the matter, behind the scenes. Nothing has been "swept under". And there's no apparent harm to Sloat or whatever. So, meanwhile, why did you give up your registered ID? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote? That's why. This long-winded tangent is of no use to the main thread and should be boxed and collapsed. If you say it's not getting swept under the carpet, then there is no longer a need for me to continue. If someone or an admin wants to courtesy blank this thread before (or after) it gets archived, then that would seem utterly appropriate (barring any contrary evidence). --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It doesn't explain why you're hiding behind a dynamic set of IP's... unless you've got something to hide. Go ahead and box it up, as long as you don't "cut it from the archive". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) You just had to go and refactor your last comment to get in that snippy little jab didn't you? You just couldn't let it be and move on. You seem to enjoy violating civility and claiming "wit" don't you? Isn't an IP more open than hiding behind a fake user persona? ...In some ways, yes. Stop rattling the cage and drop it. Unless you think throwing out accusations is going to stop people from accusing you of whatever you are trying to hide. What is it you are so afraid people are going to find out about you Bugs? Just how exactly are you connected to 96.26.213.146? And just how long have you been beating your wife? Are we done here? --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we? That's up to you. You began this segment of dialogue. Feel free to box it up. Nobody's stopping you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious if you'll let me make the last comment, or if your fingers will get tingly until you get the last word in. I'll just let this hang out here for a while. Bis Später. --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note: That was German for Hasta luego. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

To 96.26, I bet you aren't a Republican. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of that? Now you are baiting just as badly as Bugs. Drop it, for goodness sake. PrincessofLlyr 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the point. This complaint seemed pretty oddly random, but I recalled that another user, SuaveArt, had a conflict with Jinxmchue. SuaveArt was not only banned, but actually was caught sockpuppeting and using said sockpuppets to attack Jinx. You might want to check if 96.26 matches any information about SuaveArt. I'd be very surprised if it didn't. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And here is the issue I have with the both of you, and with other arrogant IP users as well. My editing history is out in the open, and you feel free to make snide remarks about my imperfections. You, in contrast, have no editing history. It starts over every time you reboot. That's why some users with dynamic IP's feel free to take drive-by shootings at registered users: because they have no history that can be scrutinized. They are hiding behind their dynamic IP's. Claims about alleged "good reasons" for dropping your registered ID are almost certainly bogus. The real reason is simply so that you can take shots at whoever you like, and never be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will fully admit that I don't have any "good reason" to not have a user account, but I'm certainly not avoiding accountability. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You avoid accountability every time you reboot - and also by refusing to tell us what your user ID was. And all of that raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with the other person. Of course, the whole "accountability" thing applies as much to me as it does him/her. I just don't see how the issue applies to those without user accounts. If you examine it deeper, not having a user account is little different to having one. You claim that people "avoid accountability every time reboot," but IP changes happen to many people with accounts. If one of them steps out of line and gets banned, can't they just reboot and make a new account using the new IP? Of course they can and they won't necessarily get caught, either. I'm sure there are plenty of users around who've done just that, some maybe even more than once. Also, there's nothing that says IPs can't be banned. So ultimately, the issue of "accountability" is really a non-issue. People editing with IPs are held to the same standards as people with accounts. Personally, I just don't want to be tempted to be obsessed with the wikidrama that I often see here. This ANI is a good example of that. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• 67.233.243.145 is not the same person. My IPs geolocate to Missouri. 67.233.243.145 geolocates to Minnesota. Do not confuse 67.233.243.145 with my IPs in the 64.85 range. I'm done here, but I did not want to be impersonated by 67.233.243.145. I added "Missouri" to my signatures above to differentiate. --(Missouri)64.85.220.245 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, allow me to clarify a few things. I have no relation with the above dynamic-IP user or Baseball Bugs. What occurred was that I happened to encounter a strange case of a domain belonging to an established Misplaced Pages user (Commodore Sloat), that served as that user's blog, being bought by another Misplaced Pages editor("Jinx McHue"), who happened to have been blocked in the past. It seems that I was wrong with the alleged death threat by Jinxmchue; I probably had him confused with another user. The link to the former blog was still preserved, unchanged, on Commodore Sloat's page, and was actually broken; but when I went to the domain that Commodore Sloat's blog was formerly on, I saw another blog, and recognized the name "Jinx McHue". There's a possibility that this is not at all a coincidence, and that "Jinx McHue" registered the domain after expiration in an attempt to "get back" at Commodore Sloat for some Misplaced Pages dispute. Nonetheless, I apologize for the confusion.

67.233.243.145, being in Minnesota, is almost surely "Jinx McHue" himself (not the dynamic IP), and if so, I apologize for confusing you with Commodore Sloat, "Jinx". You are right that I'm not a Republican, and wouldn't want to be one. I hope this clears some of this stuff up. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to honestly say that absolutely none of that so-called reasoning about either one of those two makes a lick of sense to me. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters 67.233.243.145, there's this ("Jinx McHue's" blog, which has several references to being located in Minnesota), and if you look at the User:Jinxmchue user page, there are several IPs listed as being used by Jinx (put there by "Jinx" himself), all of which geolocate to Minnesota. Yes, it's suspicious that you come from the same state. Additionally, your IP has edits unrelated to this, which are on the pages Talk:Intelligent_design (a crank theory which Jinx loves to defend) and You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, a Jesusfreak fundamentalist ministry; "Jinx McHue" is a fundamentalist Christian.

I agree that the other, dynamic IP user is not Jinxmchue, or 67.233.243.145, but Jinx and 67.233.243.145 seem like the exact same person to me. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association? (After a fashion.) I can see why you were banned. Getting around a ban by using an IP identity is still against the rules here AFAIK. It's the same as sockpuppeting, but you know all about that, don't you? 67.233.244.224 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As do you, apparently. Tell us again, how dynamic IP's are every bit as accountable as registered users? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to insinuate that I'm SuaveArt? Well, I'm not. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to insinuate that I can't tell one IP address from another, especially when they float and leave no usable editing history, thus escaping scrutiny while "boldly" taking verbal shots at registered users whose histories are visible. IP addresses have no recognizability, no identity and no accountability. And then they wonder why they get treated like Rodney Dangerfield. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jinxmchue's left in good standing with some minor blocks on his record. Whether or not Sloat is the same individual is therefore not terribly relevant. This conversation is going in unproductive directions. Let's drop it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation

Hi, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of a registered user when I am not. These IP adresses are all mine: 78.176.91.37, 85.103.166.64, 85.103.129.110. I have requested an official review of the block yesterday in the talk page of the IP ] but nobody gave an answer until now. Then, I also notified the blocking administrator for this issue

You can also read my defense in here:

Despite all these, the administrator HelloAnnyong recently blocked that IP as well and also extended the punishment of the registered user.

I wonder what should I be doing at that point, clearly blocking administrator HelloAnnyong is not interested in reading the defense of the accused party.

Thus, briefly re-state my defense in here: -Firstly, The registered user participates in wikipedia from Cyprus, I am from Istanbul.

-Secondly, the only reason why we ended up being editing the same articles because I was following the editor Nipsonanomhmata as he was deleting cited content from several articles, for instance here: and here: These two editors have a history of edit-warring with each other and this is the only reason why I am being accused of being a sockpuppet.

-Thirdly, I and the said user are in fact have one time a little disagreement over the content; he thought that a particular quotation can be used by rewording and shortening when I strongly believed that this has to be a full quotation, thus changed his version, in here:

Not being a registered user, I honestly can not understant how come two persons who do not know each other can be accused and punished without the slightests of an evidence.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You admit to using multiple IPs to edit, but you're not the master? All of your IPs geolocate to Istanbul, which the last time I checked, is in Turkey. And Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs) admits that they're fluent in Turkish and are active on the Turkish Misplaced Pages. If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense? — HelloAnnyong 16:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, someone's got a shiny new boomerang. They threw it in exactly the wrong way though. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out, I initially blocked Seksen and one of the other IPs on behavioral evidence based on the similarities between these two edits. There was a little more evidence, but per WP:BEANS, I'd rather not divulge it entirely. — HelloAnnyong 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Those similarities, between one only edit each from each user, seem pretty thin block evidence to me considering the apparent evidence of the users living a very long distance apart - see my further comments below. And if there is more "beans" evidence, could you share it with someone else? I'd promise to keep it confidential if you'd email me with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Above comments actually prove me right, you do not read the defending party before making a decision.

To answer your comments, of course all the IP's are going to "geolocate" Turkey because all are mine. The registered user is from Cyprus not from Turkey, two different countries. And here is my defense for having multiple IP's: ] which says I have a dynamic IP adress, which can change over the course of time when I am using the same computer. Is there any wikipedia rule that prohibits IP adresses to make edits?

And about your supposed proof; A registered user deletes a properly cited quotation and I revert his changes explaining my reasons to do so:

The same user again deletes the same quotaion and this time the registered user Seksen shorthens and transforms this direct quotation to a single sentence

Then, disagreeing with that decision of Seksen I actually restore the quotation back:

It needs to be added this quotation is included in the wikipedia by neither me nor by the registered user, it seems it has been there for years. Both of us simply tried to protect that quotation from deletion which made us the same person.

You also asked me that: "If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense?"

Seriously what kind of a question is that? You are making a clear mistake, accuse and punish two different people for a thing they have not done and then ask me why am I coming to his defense. I do come only to my own defense first of all, while pointing out the mistake you are doing as an administrator.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just speaking Turkish and being active on the Turkish Misplaced Pages doesn't mean someone has to be in Istanbul and doesn't make them a sockmaster - loose criteria like that would make everyone on the English Misplaced Pages socks, for one thing. Also, people on dynamic IPs do get them changed, and with some ISPs in some countries it can be very frequent (and some people switch their modems off after every session, so will always get a new IP). If User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş really is in Cyprus (where there are a lot of Turks), and the IPs geolocate to Istanbul, then there is no sock case. Can anyone do a checkuser to find out (but only tell us "not connected" results etc, obviously don't state where the register user actually is)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, half of Cyprus is occupied by Turkey, so it's really not uncommon for a Cypriot to be fluent in Turkish.--Atlan (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, he points out that Northern Cyprus ISPs are handled from Mersin in Turkey, which really is a very long way from Istanbul, and invites a checkuser - and he does stress a number of times in that page that he's a Turkish Cypriot, but nobody seems to be prepared to listen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The restoration of that passage by the IP looks a priori legitimate. I have never heard of that particular peninsula, but Greek atrocities to the Turks did happen and are (according to an informant who is a great fan of both Greek and Turkish culture and speaks modern Greek) the reason for the later atrocities by Turks to Greeks. Greeks are generally only aware of the retaliation, though.
• Editing from dial-up IPs without creating an account is totally legitimate, so there was nothing wrong with the first change of IPs.
• When the second IP was blocked, the user apparently acquired a new IP to defend themselves. While this is maybe not the approved way of doing things, it's not deceptive at all and should not be held against the user. Hans Adler 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the IP first edited right at the time Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked , and that it shows knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and terminology, we are either dealing with a) sockpuppetry via a proxy or some other way to disguise one's IP, or b) meatpuppetry. But there's definitely something fishy here. Athenean (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, so you have no idea when the *person* first started editing or how much Misplaced Pages experience they have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally use several ISPs. A couple are located in the United States. Others are located in Europe and others in the Far East and Australasia. The IP addresses that these ISPs use are allocated by their location. I can access these ISPs directly from one PC or remotely from a laptop or any other PC that is connected to the Internet (from anywhere in the world). If I use a Remote Access Server I can use an IP address that says I'm American (from a number of different states), European (from a number of different countries) and Taiwanese or Australian. I could be located in Sri Lanka and you will be convinced by my IP address that I am located in Taiwan. I personally choose to access Misplaced Pages using the same dynamically allocated range of IP addresses from one ISP. The effort required to wreak havoc on Misplaced Pages is minimal when you have the technology at your disposal. There is no technical difficulty in editing from an IP address in Mersin and an IP address in Istanbul. But that is not to say that this is what is happening here. I am just informing you of what is possible. But now I'm just giving you all ideas as per WP:BEANS.  Nipsonanomhmata  18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible for people to use different ISPs - I have ISPs in the UK and Thailand, and I can route via either from either country. But it's actually pretty uncommon for people to use two or more widely separated ISPs, and we need a lot more than knowing such a thing is possible when blocking people - we need evidence that they actually did it, and we need to actually listen to and consider the defenses offered by the accused rather than just ignoring them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

What concerns me, and which is why I raised the concern, is the timing and the seamlessness between the edits of one IP address and the next IP address. It is more than coincidence and easily passes the WP:DUCK test. If the IP addresses are not sockpuppets, then the IP addresses are meatpuppets, and if the owners of the IP addresses did not communicate with eachother then the meatpuppet-like IP addresses were just plain unlucky to have got involved when they did. Let's face it an IP address with a short history does not have a very long watchlist. There is no way of definitely proving that they did or did not communicate with eachother to co-ordinate their efforts. Either way the blocking penalties are currently no greater than one calendar month. That is not a long time penalty for all the effort that we have all been put through to reduce the disruption.  Nipsonanomhmata  19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not suggesting there was no disruption, I'm just primarily disturbed that the accused users' defenses were being totally ignored - it read to me like "You're condemned and you have no right to be listened to". But I do actually think the escalation to 1 month is too long for such a weak SPI result, for a user who may well be innocent (though we await further investigation) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Boing, if you actually take a look at the previous case for Seksen, the admin who reset his block the first time actually called for an indef this time around. I figured that a month would be a better choice. — HelloAnnyong 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, if two editors having the ability to use a common language edit the same article during the same day, this means that they are sockpuppets.

Then I wonder what happens if three editors having the ability to use the same language do the same. Editors Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similary involved in the same edit warring of the same article, where I and Seksen are accused of commiting sockpupettry, making quite similar comments with each other. In a line of continuum during the same day, first the user Athenean deleted the sourced content: then the editor Alexikoua deleted it providing almost the exact same excuses andfinally the user Nipsonanomhmata deleted that passage as well By merely restoring their deletions, we have ended up being the guilty, disruptive, sockpuppet.

In view of the comments by the editor Nipsonanomhmata, how come we can be sure of these three editors are not suckpuppets or meatpuppets, especially since Nipsonanomhmata admits that he "personally use several IP's"?

I do not want to develop a counter accusation, my point is simple; different people can have similar reactions and without you having any proof you can not accuse them of being the same person. As I have repateadly said, I have no relation whatsoever with the registered user Seksen.--78.176.80.214 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into just a content dispute. Three Greek editors edit one way, 2/3 Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot editors edit another way. yawn and big surprise. Meatpuppets? It's like accusing all Greek or all turkish editors of beiing meatpuppets. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody else think that it is weird to be having meaningful discussions with IP addresses, who are communicating without registered userids, but clearly have lots of experience on Misplaced Pages? I think it's pretty weird. I also think that we are wasting our time.  Nipsonanomhmata  23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing too special about that. With IP addresses from California (especially 75.*.*.*) we can see this all the time. One of them is a member of WikiProject Mathematics. Hans Adler 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty weird to be conversing with people with names like Nipsonanomhmata, let's face it. There's nothing unusual about IPs with experience on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has been around for ten years, some of them probably have more editing experience than you. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Even so, that's a recognizable and possibly meaningful name. Random strings of digits have no meaning, no identity. They all look alike. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - When are we going to get smart (I should say, "stop being stupiid") and require registration and logging in to edit? Carrite (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Never. It goes against what the Wikimedia Foundation wants for the site. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Never say never. But at this point there's no energy for it. The Foundation is about 10 years behind the times on this, since every other website that allows user input requires registration. There's no longer a need to allow anons to edit. But they still want it this way. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless the foundation gives up control of Misplaced Pages, or has a fundamental change of priorities, we're never going to see required logins. I have a feeling the foundation will collapse in on itself long before they agree to that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a comment I was working on to post here, but it got to be too long, so I stuck it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I be reminding that here we are dealing with a specific false sock-puppetry case, not with the benefits of enforcing to have a registered username in order to edit Misplaced Pages. Im sure you can have the latter and very important debate in another place.. Im sorry, I had to change IP again that is still me who started this section. After all these, I do agree though unregistered users better stay away from contentious topics unless they decide to have a registered account to avoid such confusion. --78.176.87.165 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to . Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009 for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and Twinkle

• Walter_Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Relevant policy: Second paragraph

I am getting no where with this user, I think partly because of past. So I'll just quickly outline the last incident with them and Twinkle abuse. The ANI thread from that incident is here. Basically Walter violated 3RR by restoring content that violated the non-free content criteria and incorrectly called another edit vandalism. I temporarily removed access to Twinkle, and restored it later after it seemed apparent that the problem would not continue. It may also be worth noting this ANI thread, although I am not so familiar with it. But these kinds of edits, linked to from there, display the same problems.

Now, Walter is yet again misusing Twinkle and incorrectly calling other edits vandalism, with this edit. I brought this up on his talk page, but he does not appear to be willing to discuss this issue with me, as shown by this sarcastic response, and frankly, after his edit summary here I am no longer particularly keen to discuss this directly with him myself. He seems to think that the Football WikiProject has the authority to make their own policy and put them into practice without input from the wider community. It seems apparent to me that he is not willing to consider that the edit he reverted was not, in fact, vandalism. The latest argument seems to be that his other work excuses him. He skirts around the actual issue (of misusing rollback), basely accuses me of hounding, or talks about if the edit was "correct" or not (which as I explained to him, is a different issue, and "incorrect" is distinct from "vandalism"). This is becoming disruptive, especially his accusations of hounding. Please read the discussion on his talkpage for the full context. I would appreciate some input and advice from others regarding this. Thanks, - Kingpin (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please see my talk page. He is essentially hounding me and abusing his power and attempting to intimidate me, which is what happened the last time he accused me of abusing Twinkle.

The issue is simple and I have answered his question, but on my terms. I acted in good faith and marked an edit that I perceived as vandalism as vandalism. The editor who made it refuses to discuss the issue despite being warned. At the time I accepted that it was a policy. It seems not everyone agrees it is and so I am discussing a change and I have determined not to assume it is until consensus has been reached on the matter. However, at the time, I was acting in good faith, and as such did not abuse Twinkle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, if the edit was correct or not is a non-issue, if you were reverting it because of this policy you keep talking about (and still haven't linked to) you should have said as much in your summary, instead of hitting rollback (VANDAL). Just because you are acting in good faith does not mean you're not abusing (i.e. improperly using) Twinkle. You still appear to be unable to accept that the user was not vandalising. Do you still "perceive" the edit as vandalism? - Kingpin (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, that the edit was or wasn't correct is the only issue. If someone does something not in good faith, that is vandalism. If someone writes obscenities on a page, that is vandalism. If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism. Based on my understanding, the editor was vandalizing. There's nothing to accept to the contrary.

I can't link to the policy because there isn't a policy. That was pointed-out later. However I linked to the place where someone said it was a policy. Sorry you didn't see that. I took the other editor's word. That is good faith. I attempted to discuss with the other editor. That is good faith. I only made edits that were in keeping with the policy. That is good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest it wasn't in good faith (hence, it wasn't vandalism). It wasn't adding obscenities. There was no such policy. Please try to keep it relevant to the issue at hand.

Oh right, so now you decide to say there is no such policy. When exactly did you become aware of this? - Kingpin (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I know now that there wasn't a policy, but at the time, and based on the discussion I referenced, I assumed that there was a policy. Hence in my mind there was a policy. Hence my actions were based on the policy. Hence my use of Twinkle was in good faith and the other editor's actions were vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism." No it isn't. We have a very clear definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. In the section giving examples of what isn't vandalism, I see numerous examples of policy violations that aren't vandalism. You are following your own invented definition, and have replied sarcastically when it is pointed out to you. Since you insist on misusing Twinkle, I don't see why it shouldn't be revoked. -- Atama頭 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I already said that your good faith doesn't really matter, although I'm not saying you were not acting in good faith. Again, when exactly did you become aware that there was no such policy? - Kingpin (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm. That was irony. Good to know that my good faith doesn't matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

That editor's action were deliberately compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages by going against what I perceived as a policy.

Your actions are also deliberately compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages by attacking an editor who is acting in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait. The other editor was deliberately going against a nonexistent policy? In any case, as pointed out by Atama, policy violations are not vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good faith is appreciated, however, on the subject of if you were abusing Twinkle or not, it is less relevant than you seem to think. Just because a user is violating a policy does not mean they are vandalising, as Atama pointed out. Now please, when exactly did you learn that that policy didn't even exist? Also, this is probably a bad time and place to be accusing Atama of vandalism (or me for that matter, it's not quite clear who that was directed at). - Kingpin (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believed it was a policy at the time, and it was compromising Misplaced Pages by turning it into a scoreboard, which it's not. This entire issue is being discussed presently though and will go with whatever consensus makes it. My actions were in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not your actions were in good faith, they were wrong. Twinkle is a tool that can cause havoc if it's in the hands of someone who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages well enough to use it safely. "Vandal" is one of the nastiest words we have on Misplaced Pages, and reverting edits as vandalism that aren't can cause a lot of harm, our policy on vandalism says as much. If this was a simple mistake that you would try not to repeat in the future, that's one thing. But you're being willful in your misuse, you're even accusing anyone who criticizes your actions as being disruptive. Frankly, the only reason why your Twinkle use hasn't been revoked is because I can't find where the blacklist for it is. -- Atama頭 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet again, it does not matter if it is, or was, policy. It does not mean that the edit is or is not vandalism. As I've said already several times on your talk page, and others have said here: The issue of if the edit is "correct" or not is distinct from the issue of if it was vandalism, and if you were right to revert it as such.

Walter clearly is not capable of correctly identifying what is not vandalism, and is clearly unwilling to learn, I would support removing his access to Twinkle at this time. I'm interested in what others think about this? - Kingpin (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I already said, I would have just done it myself, but don't know where the blacklist is with the new Twinkle version. So of course I support this. -- Atama頭 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a general question: What are the criteria for giving a user the authority to do mass-updates like this Twinkle thing does? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the only requirement is that an editor is registered. It might also require that they are autoconfirmed, I'm not sure. But it's basically open to anyone as long as they don't misuse it. Getting Twinkle access involves putting a checkbox on your preferences page. -- Atama頭 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see it on the "gadgets" page. Seems like there should be some kind of training or minimum-knowledge test before someone launches that kind of tool. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am capable of both understanding what identifying what vandalism as, and am quite willing to learn. My actions were done in good faith and will not happen again if I am permitted to use Twinkle. Without it, I doubt that I will continue editing on Misplaced Pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, clearly not able to identify what's long understood to be vandalism. If you are willing to act in such a drastic manner on the basis of a hazy understanding of policy, you should lose twinkle until you can demonstrate a better understanding of what vandalism is and what it is not. RxS (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you're threatening to leave Misplaced Pages if Twinkle is taken away? I don't have the words. -- Atama頭 00:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy's been here since October of 2004 and doesn't know what vandalism is? If he wants to leave, don't stand in his way. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really threatening, I'm just saying I'll have to re-evaluate whether I can do the things I do now without it. If it's more difficult to edit, I don't know if there's a reason to stay. However, I do see the value in educating people rather than punishing them. Often, an explanation is all that is needed to educate, and that's what has happened here. That's what happened the last time Kingpin explained something. I learned, I adapted, and I'm a better editor as a result. Iterative learning is learning too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As for not "knowing" what vandalism is, that's not quite correct. I don't read all of the policy pages. I learn as I go along. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been here longer than I have, and years ago I learned what vandalism is. It's hard to imagine how you could have been here 7 years and still not known what vandalism is. Do you also have the rollback feature? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter only has Reviewer status. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to seek out the wikipedia definition of vandalism and I have learned a lot through discussion. If nothing has changed since earlier today, I should still have rollback status. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If by "I have learned a lot from discussion", you mean that you now understand why that sort of edit is not vandalism, and that you have learned what we mean by vandalism, and that you understand how carefully twinkle must be used, I'm not sure it's necessary to prevent you from using it, though I would advise a careful review of our policies in general. Otherwise, I think we do not have the option of removing it by protecting the javascript page, as we could have done previously, but we certainly can still say we would block someone if they continued to use it after we found they were using it improperly. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the middle of May my understanding has changed. Going against policy is not vandalism. Furthermore, going against what I perceive as a policy but actually isn't one is not only ignorant, it's probably closer to vandalism than the original actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Something's out of whack here. You don't even have to have "read the policy" to know what vandalism is, because it is very frequently discussed. I ask again: How can an editor be here for 7 years and have no earthly clue about what vandalism is??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussed where I edit.

To suggest that I have no earthly clue is hyperbole as well. I do understand what vandalism is. We learned about it in Western Civilization. They're the people who sacked Rome around the fifth century. They wrote graffito on walls and made life miserable for the civilized world. Etymologically, it now means people who deliberately damage things. So since that and Misplaced Pages's definition don't quite line up, that's what's a bit out of whack.

The editor in question was deliberately damaging what I understood to be consensus, and refused to discuss changes. That to me is vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition you link above is irrelevant. The one you need to read and understand, which has been pointed out to you a number of times recently, is WP:VAND. —DoRD (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually like the second definition at Cambridge more any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:VAND doesn't contradict those, but elaborates for Misplaced Pages-specific purposes. In this case, any good-faith edit is not vandalism. The dictionary covers the general purpose definition. You're not helping yourself in the slightest by bringing in different dictionaries. If you don't want to take the good-faith aspect into account, then allow me to remove your dictionary citing edits as "vandalism." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz has not only demonstrated a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, xe has also demonstrated misunderstanding of what is, and is not, policy - and the fundamental way that Misplaced Pages operates. Xe seems to think that a brief discussion amongst a project group defines policy, and that such can be considered policy until consensus determines otherwise. Xe has adamantly refused to abide by actual, existing policies and guidelines, citing such things as an essay (WP:RECENT), and "WP Footbal group policy" . In the discussion, xe wrote, Misplaced Pages is still not a scoreboard. Period. Nothing you say can convince me that this should change. If people continue to misuse Misplaced Pages, Chzz too, they should be warned and then banned if it continues. .  Chzz  ►  03:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you notice in that discussion there is a comment it states that there is a policy: "this policy is hard to apply". My mistake was taking the editor's word for it and acting on it without asking to point to the actual policy.

Chzz has not actually pointed to any existing policies or guidelines that contradict WP:RECENT and to the best of my recollection has only pointed to an edit by Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales immediately after someone in a wedding said "I do" as if to imply Mr. Wales runs wikipedia. He is just one voice of many.

There are other editors who think as I do on the subject. My stand in the comment as quoted was one diametrically opposed to another editor's stance so as to generate further discussion. If anyone continues to do this - particularly if they misuse rollback, Walter - I think they could be classed as being disruptive. Despite me not commenting for several days on the thread. I simply turned the phrase back. I further understand what vandalism is now as a result of today's discussions, however that doesn't change my position on that Misplaced Pages is not a scoreboard. I don't believe that this discussion belongs here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's merely a perception, which has been getting increasingly more popular, of what construes vandalism – which is any edit in which another user disagrees with. –MuZemike 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why this shouldn't be treated like any other newbie user to twinkle who misuses the "vandal" button on it. Given this is apparently not WG's first visit to ANI over such an issue, why should anyone believe they actually do, honestly, swear-to-god, understand what constitutes vandalism? Take away Twinkle and let him edit normally. Stuff can be reverted without Twinkle, and I think taking away TW would force WG to be more open to discussion over edits he disagrees with. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second that. If you don't know what vandalism is then you shouldn't educate others by labeling edits as it incorrectly, like the diff provided in the beginning of the thread. Taking away Twinkle (or Rollback) shouldn't make an editor quit if they're here to do it right. Doc talk 04:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I have shown that I can learn and I have demonstrated good use of the tool. The previous time was not for the same reason, but for a similar one. In the previous discussion, I didn't assume that the editor was acting in good faith. In this one, I attempted to discuss with the editor and the editor refused. I had to use a blunt instrument to get the editor's attention. However, had I understood at the time that I was not actually enforcing a policy but a strongly held conviction of many in the Football group I wouldn't even have done that. Again, I do know what vandalism is. Again, I didn't say I would quit, but that I would have to reconsider how I edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, since WP:VANDALISM apparently doesn't contradict "any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good" and I felt the editor was destroying something that was good, vis: an agreement, I do understand what vandalism is.—Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 June 2011

(edit conflict) If you label an edit as vandalism when it's not, it's either being lazy or not understanding the concept. "Undo" allows you to use an edit summary, and is far more likely to educate an editor when it is clearly not vandalism. But this has been pointed out. Don't quit, and learn from this. Doc talk 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you ask for some specific policy. Are you familiar with the WP:3RR policy? You breached it, in removing the score four times; .  Chzz  ►  04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is adding an HTML comment removing information or is the removing of the comment?

As for a policy, that's not the one I was asking about. I was asking for one that opposed WP:RECENT and you knew that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TW should not be used as a "blunt instrument". If you cannot get your message across then either you are saying it wrong or you should seek assistance from another person. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the rest of the football project were watching the match that day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter stills seems to be trying to nuance his definition of vandalism into Wikipedias. He seems to be saying that since his dictionary understanding of the word doesn't contradict how policy defines it, he understands it. I don't think the message is totally getting through, and I think his access to twinkle should be removed for now. He can still edit, I just don't feel comfortable with his attitude. RxS (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's not what I was going for. What I was trying to say was that a week ago, that was closer to my definition. As of today's discussion I understand more fully what Misplaced Pages's definition is and I will adjust my understanding to match that of Misplaced Pages's while editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. WP:3RR. I would think it utterly obvious that <!-- commenting out --> text in an article is 'reversing actions' - it removes the content from display in the article - and is absolutely no different to removing it, for these purposes.  Chzz  ►  04:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why have you hijacked the discussion about his use of Twinkle into one about a content dispute? This really isn't the place to settle the content issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincere apologies; sorry, you're quite right. I've collapsed it. I guess this isn't the right place for that discussion. It got side-tracked; my fault. Feel free to remove it, if that's preferred.  Chzz  ►  05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me take a different approach

If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism? At the time, that was my perception of what was happening. It was my understanding that this editor's actions were detrimental to the image of Misplaced Pages. It seems that what editors are focusing on are my actions without understanding or accepting my perception of the situation. They are focusing on the way I marked the actions as vandalism when they would not have. They are focusing on how many edits I made. They are not focusing on whether I believed that I was actually preventing vandalism or not. At the time, I honestly believed I was preventing vandalism. If the match were tomorrow and I had gone through this discussion, I would not believed that it is vandalism thanks to discussions with several editors. However, my use of Twinkle has correctly identified vandalism on many occasions and so what is at question is the one edit a week ago, which as I said above. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by not discussing his changes, which were also against WP:3RR. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by going against what I perceived as consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism?" No. That's not vandalism. Vandalism is when a person is intentionally trying to damage an article in some way. A person going against consensus is still trying to improve the article, they are just going about it the wrong way. And again, we get it, you thought you were using Twinkle properly. We're not accusing you of misusing Twinkle on purpose. But you still misused it, and even worse, you either ignored others who told you that you were misusing it, or accused them of being disruptive for trying to hinder your efforts.

Here's some advice in the future, when you're trying to determine if something is vandalism or not (whether or not you do so using Twinkle)... Go to WP:VANDTYPES. See if the edit falls under any of those specific categories. If it doesn't clearly fit any of those descriptions, it isn't vandalism. For example, look on the list, and see if "editing against consensus" is on that list. -- Atama頭 06:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, someone edits an article to implement WP#NUMERO and adds an appropriate comment. Someone comes back to the article and replaces all of the edits with the original # signs without explanation. The first editor comes back and adds a comment to point to the policy in the edit summary. The second editor returns and undoes without comment. The first editor comes back and restores and then adds a polite comment to the other editor's talk page. That second editor returns and undoes again without comment. At what point is the behaviour significantly disruptive to constitute vandalism? I hear you saying never. But WP:VANDTYPES says gaming the system, evading the spirit of community consensus, is vandalism. So which is it? This is what I thought I was dealing with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Constant reversion without discussion is rude, but not vandalism. It never is. Accept that.

How are you not going against consensus by refusing to acknowledge the site's definition of vandalism? By your definition of vandalism, you would be included.

Gaming the system consists of "Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and procedures by making BAD FAITH edits go unnoticed" - Again, edits made in good faith are not vandalism.

Accusations of vandalism do count as personal attacks, however. Bringing in dictionary definitions to try and change the meaning of vandalism would be an example of gaming the system.

Deliberate introduction of incorrect information is vandalism, but that usually requires that you have pretty good evidence that the other person is totally wrong, i.e. a few professionals in a field and even someone uninvolved in the subject pointing out using the wrong editor's sources that the wrong editor's understanding is the complete opposite the truth. That's about the closest to vandalism "going against consensus" can be.

Walter, you just need to accept that you are completely wrong about what constitutes vandalism. You do not have anyone defending your use of the word "vandalism" here. That should indicate something to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ian, you need to back way off. I'm trying to understand what constitutes vandalism and the nuances of the terms. I'm not trying to change any definitions but understand what it means here since it's not quite what I would call vandalism. I am trying to bring my understanding into line with that of the Misplaced Pages community. To accuse me of doing something other than that is not good faith.

I think I have a better understanding now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would this edit constitute vandalism? It was made in good faith as the first artist in question is "Catholic" and not part of mainstream evangelical Christianity and so not part of the "Christian rap scene" and that's why the edit was made. The second band is white, British, and is not primarily rap. So knowing why the edits were made, and knowing that they were made in good faith means they're not vandalism. Is this correct? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of the edits in that sequence are vandalism; they are merely edit warring and failure to cooperate--which is certainly bad enough. Misunderstanding and carelessness is not vandalism. Vandalism here implies the intent to damage. It can, by extension, also mean recklessness to the degree of not caring whether or not there is damage, but it seems that most charges of vandalism based on recklessness rather than actual maliciousness are hotly disputed. A dispute over contents or behavior or policy is not vandalism, no matter how pig-headed. The dispute may be disruptive to the extent of warranting blocking or even banning, but it is not vandalism. People have often used the term more loosely, but that is wrong because it's the strongest negative thing we can possibly say about actions here, and it loses its force unless reserved for the most extreme cases. Walter, you have repeatedly said you acknowledge the accepted meaning here, and then made a statement using it much more broadly. The only thing I can suggest is that you totally refrain from using that word ever again here in the future. It's almost always possible to substitute "non-constructive"--but even that has become a pretty strong term, and I have switched to using "inappropriate". DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I understand this more fully now. I would not have called it vandalism since they are editing in good faith, but it's clearly against references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But... you did call it vandalism, that's what leaving the default edit summary implies. I notice that you are using the normal undo though, and not Twinkle. Does this mean that you plan to stop using Twinkle until you have a proper understanding of vandalism? You keep saying here that you're willing to learn and so on, but do you appreciate what I have had to do to even get you to listen to the concerns I brought up on your talk page? It's all very well saying you want to learn, but you haven't demonstrated that - infact, all your actions indicate the exact opposite. When I come to your talk page and point out a problem, the response from someone who wants to learn would be to say that they understand, and will read up on the issue. Instead, the response I got from you was: Being completely ignored; Being told I was hounding you (when this was most certainly not the case); Being told that you didn't take the time to read the relevant policies; Being told you would not change your approach; and the list goes on. So, to attempt to move this towards a conclusion, I would say some of the results wanted here is that (a) you lay off the Twinkle for a bit (which you appear to be doing already, so thank you for that), (b) you read the vandalism policy, and in future read and make sure you understand policies before you cite them in discussions (i.e. do not accuse others of violating a policy unless you are sure they have done so, and when in doubt, seek confirmation) and (c) in future, try to respond better to criticism of your actions - remember that often people are trying to help, not attack. Would you say these three points are all fair, and would you be willing to give a shot at abiding by them? - Kingpin (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I mentioned earlier, and was admonished for thread drift, but there is an elephant in the room. I've questioned Walter Görlitz over simple policy - not a 'content issue' - and the response was, Nothing you say can convince me that this should change - that isn't related to Twinkle, but is sure is related to this issue re. basic failure to understand, accept and adhere to consensus/policy.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Branko Lustig wiki page and User:Biblbroks

Biblbroks is making constant changes on Branko Lustig Wiki page that make no sense. This, in my opinion, borders with vandalism. Please advise what to do. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks is under a 3 month topic ban from Kosovo-related topics, and I'm not sure if this is related. Removing the nationality from the lede, as he has been doing in edits such as this, the past several weeks could be related to this or another nationalist dispute. I don't wanna' touch any Arbcom stuff with a ten foot pole, however, so I'll be stepping out now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was notified on my talk page regarding this report and was requested to advise it, I will try to give some background information and my opinion. Firstly I want to be noted that user Eversman never engaged in any discussion regarding the changes to the above-mentioned article prior to this. Instead the user acted on a first impulse - it appears. This should have be done differently I think; that's what the article talk pages exist. As for the mention of me being under a 3 month topic ban and giving an opinion that this could be related to a nationalist dispute - well, this could be regarded as a slander or at least a gossip, because of where was it posted. I am quite sure that such a comment doesn't belongs on this page - at least not a comment given in such a cynical manner, as it appears it was (at least to me). If anyone wants to discuss the changes to the above-mentioned article, I think the best place is the article's talk page. As for the slander/gossip of this being related to a nationalist dispute, I welcome anyone to discuss this at my talk page or some place else which might be more appropriate. If anyone is interested in this, I have some links to information regarding this issue on my user page. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed the point brought up.

This is not a Kosovo related page, but it's another Balkan country, and you appear to be editing disruptively with several other editors reverting the changes you are making.

As someone currently under an AE topic ban in a closely related topic, you are at least brushing up against the edge of the explicit restriction here and should back away from controversial editing in related pages.

Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I haven't addressed the issue as it was expected of me. I was a little irritated by the exact "bringing up of the point", and to be more specific by the sarcastic comment that followed. Sarcastic or cynical - anyway I perceive it as such. On my first thought when I started writing my previous comment I wanted to explain my edits and the situation more thoroughly, but then I changed my mind because I thought it would be better if I was short. Therefore I reduced my comment to what is above and I understand now I was wrong. I am sorry and I apologize to whomever I insulted with my comment. When writing it I completely forgot to think of how my edits can and are under stricter scrutiny than before. The scrutiny especially because of the Kosovo related case, in which I am involved and which was brought up not by me (I think) and unnecessarily (I think). As I think it is quite necessary to be precise here, I will try to be: my edits can and are, I believe, under stricter scrutiny because of the AE sanction upon me - a ban for particular topic. Exactly because of the name and the meaning that goes with the topic in question (Kosovo) I am not sure that your opinion, Georgewilliamherbert - that the article Branko Lustig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a closely related topic to that topic - well, I am not sure that this opinion of yours has enough argumentation. I wanted to note this in the hope of avoiding further connection of the sanction imposed on me with the issue of edits to Branko Lustig article. Or with any other issue, of course - I hope my hopes aren't too high. Also, Georgewilliamherbert, if after reading my comment you still think it's necessary that I stop, please tell me exactly what would you like me to stop. I sincerely believe that won't be necessary, but of course I might be wrong - if that would be the case, anyone please correct me, because I am really trying to act in good faith as I am hoping others will, too. As for this issue - my edits and the explanation for them - I feel I must give a thorough and lengthy comment, so please be patient. There it goes:

• First I want to be clear that (prior to user Eversman edit) I thought I was engaging with one anonymous editor - an editor who is insisting to push up a pro-Croatian perspective of the Branko Lustig's origin and ethnicity (or nationality). The very first edit I made, before this "edit-war" started, was after carefully listening the whole youtube clip (link) of the interview with Branko Lustig titled Branko Lustig: "Plakao sam hrvatski.", which is given in the article as a reference. I suspected that him being rescued by a Croatian officer, what I read the very instant before I decided to check it, wasn't correct. This could be regarded as bad faith I understand - but bad faith of the content of the article, since I never checked who was that put this info in the article. Anyway it turned out that I was right - I think. I never found the mention of him being rescued by a Croatian officer in the interview, so I excluded this and replaced it with the mention of a German officer (this I was trying to explain in the edit summary of my edit: diff). Also I think it worth mentioning that the edit of Lustig's credits for survival to a Croatian officer (diff) was made by user Mirkofilipovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has only two edits - all this I found out while writing this comment. After I was editing the article some more, I noticed that it mentions that Lustig is a Croatian film producer - actually linking to Croatia, not Croatians - and since I suspected that this was done hastily as well (as the article mentions that Lustig was born in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and that he was an Auschwitz prisoner) I thought even more and suspected of this article being edited from a pro-Croatian perspective. As it turns out (just recently) the edit mentioning him being a Croatian (that is linking to Croatia) was done by anonymous editor 143.117.157.61 - here's the diff. In the diff you can find that apart from the mention of Lustig being a Croatian American film producer being changed to Croatian film producer in the first sentence of the article, also the categories for the article were changed from Croatian Jews and Croatian Americans to Croatian actors and Croatian film actors. I didn't go that far to investigate when the categories Croatian film producers and Croatian expatriates in the United States were introduced for this article. Maybe further investigation can find out that such changes of the article are questionable also - questionable as I believe those, which I mentioned previously, are. Also a day or two ago I investigated the refs in the article and haven't found any mention of him being a Croatian film producer. Instead I found mentions of him being Croatian-American film producer (Template:Lang-sh - Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin - in all those languages/variants is the same). The mention of him being a "hrvatsko-američki filmski producent" can be found in this ref which is dated April 2007. Also when writing this I also found out that:

1. this ref dated July 2008 mentions him in the context of him being "hrvatski dobitnik čak dvaju Oscara",
2. this ref dated May this year mentions him in the context of him being a "hrvatski filmaš",
3. this ref dated May 2009 mentions him not sure about returning to "Hrvatska" i.e. Croatia (if I understand from Beverly Hills).

• Maybe further investigation of refs or some other sources might show different perspective from mine, but I think that this man and his ethnicity and origin is somehow propriated (propriate - as in taken into property) by some current Croatian media. And maybe some editors as well. If I am wrong, then it's my bad faith - I hope nothing "bad-faithed" on me from other Wikipedians, too. Why, because I am pretty sure that none of the other Wikipedians can explain when does a person become a Croatian film producer from a Croatian-American film producer, if being a Croatian-American film producer at all in the first place. Of course, if anyone thinks he/she is able to, or if anyone thinks that this is the issue with the article, I am ready to listen/read and keen to change my opinion.

Anyway, I hope this comment can clear the case. If not, I can take a recluse from editing this article or explain further. I hope none of the two is necessary. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Gold

Not sure what do do here. Apparently this singer has died. Can't find any RS on the death, however. A user linked to what appears to be a blog and another user posted on the talk page that it has been verified through a mutual acquaintance. Don't want to get in an edit war here, however, I feel this does not meet WP:RS and falls under WP:GRAPEVINE. Comments, please? Many thanks. --Manway 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You're in the right - no source, no info. His official site makes no mention if it, and neither does any reliable news service. Obviously nothing more than malicious internet rumours. GiantSnowman 20:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you had left the info up and the guy was well-known enough, you would probably find it in RSs regardless of whether it was true or not. I remember that happening once because someone had vandalised an article (saw it on the news). It was quickly fixed on Wiki, but the news outlets had egg on their face. Moral of the story, it pays to be vigilant on BLP articles. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• RPP requested. GiantSnowman 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Protected by Connormah (talk · contribs), much obliged if you are reading this. GiantSnowman 21:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with rights to edit the article provide a reliable source in the article for his death? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a source there. If you think it's not a reliable source, maybe you could find one? Or, conversely, demonstrate that it's a false rumor? I went looking yesterday and one site hit my PC with malware, so I'm not that keen on looking at this matter very closely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no source at Andrew_Gold#Death. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the source in the footnote in the very first sentence, right after the alleged death-date. Is that a valid source? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The section I am speaking about needs a source. This is (or was a recent) BLP. If we're going to make claims, we need to back them up with sources. I can't edit the article, somebody who can, should put the source into the section that talks about his death. I can't do that. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article from Variety: Andrew Gold dies at 59, Posted: Sun., Jun. 5, 2011, 2:07pm PT JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also reported on his mother's website , which should qualify as an RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's finally been sourced. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So, was the source in the first sentence valid, or not? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another BF101 sock...

67.81.49.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been causing serious disruption at Talk:The Rescuers, such as refactoring other users' talk page comments. This IP has been blocked before and I suspect that it has been used by Bambifan101, who is possibly using this account for today's disruption to Misplaced Pages. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for a year, after noting that this ip's edits to classic Bf101 targeted articles goes back to 2007 and only such edits appear in the history. I do not think that such a sanction will effect any other individual, but would welcome review of the tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that 68.17.110.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tagged this noted IP as potentially being a Bambifan sock here. This does match Bambifan's M.O., where he flags his own work as being a Bambifan sock. Its edit history also includes common BF target articles, it geolocates to Mobile, Alabama and Bellsouth.net, and it has been blocked before as a suspected BF sock. I will leave the appropriate notice on that IP as well. --McDoobAU93 23:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Very likely. However, inactive since January so just keeping a watching brief seems appropriate... um, you rather than me of course! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to revise my note indicating that it hasn't had any edits since it was last blocked. I'll keep an eye on it, just the same. --McDoobAU93 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is that wonderful cartoon with Bernard and Miss Bianca the mice, right? Why is he targetting that page exactly? (I'm not even going to ask about it needing an archive page xD). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:HXL49

Upon denying User:HXL49's request for rollback and request for autopatrolled rights, I received two separate personal attacks of varying degrees here and here. That said, I respectfully refer this issue to the community for review and action. Regards, FASTILY 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the guy thought being incredibly rude (dare I say obnoxious? I think you could go that far) would get him what he wants. He's definitely not in a cooperative (like working well with others, and I guess also cooperating with this) sort of mindset judging by what he said to you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

He attacked me yet again. -FASTILY 05:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whine all you want for this single incident. At the Autopatrol page, you are completely at fault for your poor, brusque handling of my case, not at all basing your decision on what I have done with the articles I have created. This was casus belli for me to be aggressive (but not yet brutal) towards you. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, that reply for which HXL49 twice "attacked" you, here, was pretty provocative on your part. You had already denied his request for rollback, which he was getting increasingly upset about, so the prudent thing to do would have been to disengage. Instead, you followed him to a separate request, both denying it and misrepresenting it (he did not say he wanted to "avoid scrutiny"). Those were fighting words. Quigley (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote the comment Fastily was responing to: "Also, when I create foreign language redirects or DAB pages, I wish to avoid hounding that could lead to PRODs, RFDs, AFDs, and the like, much less anything that leads to a massive debate like this one here". That sure seems like that was what HXL49 was asking for. And User:Fastily is correct that that is not what that particular user right is for. Heiro 05:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I had interpreted newly created DAB pages and redirects to be applied under Autopatrolled rights. And did I say that was my only intended area of usage for this privilege? Read my subsequent reply. Once I systematically begin writing the town, township, and subdistrict articles in earnest, the New Pages log could certainly take some less work. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any question to the existence of a personal attack when he told Fastily to "move your lazy ass." He also stated that "this is nothing but idiocy on your part." These are both attack worthy statements. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley Go back and carefully re-read the autopatrolled request again; once you've finished that, do amend your statement accordingly ;) Also, for the record, personal attacks are still personal attacks, regardless of whether alleged "provocative" behavior was in play. -FASTILY 05:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a judgment on whether or not HXL49's comments were personal attacks; I just pointed out that that to someone who is unfamiliar with the autopatrolled policy, your reply to his request was curt, and the wrong approach for someone in a volatile state. Quigley (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, that is hypocrisy for you to tell him to be carefully reading. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of a personal attack upon myself I will say that this user has a long history of being rude and uncivil. He once left on my talk page. I don't believe he is able to grasp the concept of comment on content, not on editors and he is completely unable to "play well with others." He has appeared at ANI , , and . Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No you don't risk an attack from me. My dealings with Fastily are a shadow of what I can be. I never believe that this methodology bolsters my arguments, and indeed that is not my purpose; in most cases I instead attempt to intimidate the opposition to not proceed any further. Anyone can open even a WP:RFC/U on me if they wish, but in any case, my attacks have been nowhere near as severe as this, which was enough for a near-immediate 48-hour block. Even at my most distressed I would never descend to that level. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

is another incident where, although it is not a personal attack, HXL49 is quick to assume stupidity or ignorance in other editors. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't abide by WP:AGF and instead operate by almost its complete opposite: Guilty until proven innocent. I won't comment on that incident now, as your awarding of the barnstar was enough of an "apology", but I will say that the facts speak for themselves. Also, remember that if you provide http:// links, you don't use double brackets on the exterior... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, your diffs do not support your statements. In fact, his was a very patient response for what you were trying to do (repeatedly adding unsourced statements to the Republic of China article, and then edit-warring to keep them because of conviction, rather than reliable sources). None of the ANI links you have posted have come to a definitive conclusion against him—they only show that HXL49 is active in reverting blatant nationalistic POV pushing, which is difficult to do without making a few enemies. Quigley (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, your comments are blatantly false and I ask that you rescind them. First, I did not edit war. I removed a section from the Republic of China page, HXL49 reverted my edit with an explanation. I had no problem with his explanation and did not make a change. Later, a citation needed template was placed after a sentence by Bdoserror. HXL49 reverted his edit with the explanation of "No". I re-added the citation needed template because the reasoning was poor and because I firmly believed that sentence needed a citation to back it up. HXL49 reverted that edit stating that it was well documented. My final edit on that page was an addition of a source in order to resolve the dispute without conflict. Not only did I not repeatedly add unsourced statements, I actually sourced a statement that did not coincide with my initial view of the subject. My diffs do support my statements. HXL49 left a message on my talk page, in that talk page he stated that I would never become the President of the US. That was completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Memory is faulty, and I admit my mistake. But regardless of whether adding or removing information was your weapon of choice, you can expect that if you waltz into a controversial article that is subject to constant IP vandalism, and make a major POV-unbalancing edit without an attempt at discussion, that you will be reverted and warned quickly. The correct response is not to nurture grudges or to throw tantrums against the editor who inducts you into the system, but to act humbly and reform your own behavior. You have a second chance to do this now by stepping away from the dead horse. Quigley (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily - please disengage, you are aggrevating him right now. I will leave a NPA final warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. -FASTILY 06:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I ask that you respond to the section on PopUps on my talk. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, stop, for your own sake. Quigley (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, HXL49, cool down and have a nice cup of tea. We don't need to continue aggravating the situation. Fastily has already agreed to disengage. —mc10 (t/c) 20:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

-HXL, I agree that it is ok to remove a section from your talk page with an automated tool. Doing so implies that you acknowledge the notice, just like a manual removal does, but you save one click. There are reasons why it is better to leave talk page sections on your talk page, but if you are going to remove them I agree with you that it is ok to do it with an automated tool (although an edit summary would have been nice). However, you should not use popups or any other means to vandalize talk pages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This can probably be wrapped up. There's clearly an problematical editor whose been given a NPA final warning. I (among others I'm sure) will follow through on that warning if the problems persist, for example his attempts to "intimidate the opposition". RxS (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this user not blocked for the lack of civility not only on Fastily's page but here? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of wonder at that too. Especially since the editor self-admits to operating on a principle that is the opposite of AGF and hinting at the usage of "brutality" against the OP (I guess as part of the stated "policy of intimidation"). This editor does not sound like an asset to the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A block is not a solution to every problem. This user has made over 12,000 edits, 70% of them in article space, most of them filling in information about much-neglected cities and towns in China. His attitude needs to be reformed, but he is definitely a unique asset to the project. Quigley (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not a block, but he does seem to need some work done on his spirit of coorporation (or lack thereof). Also, while he may look like an asset judging solely by his mainspace edits, we can't know how many other potential 12,000 mainspace edit users his stated "policy of intimidation" may have scared away from Misplaced Pages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. So, despite rules and policies against attacks on other users, it's the number of actual edits you've made which are more important than how you conduct yourself. Thanks for letting me know. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what was said at all. Saddhiyama said, "This editor does not sound like an asset to the project." just based on HXL49's comments in this thread. I provided a more holistic view of HXL49's unique contributions to the project. We are all in general agreement that more civility is needed from everyone. Quigley (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Limp Against The Korn Chamber Head. A user put this on my talk page for some reason. I don't know if it's a personal attack or not, but if so, I would like the user to be warned.Boohs Pooh is the user.--1966batfan (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Warned user. -FASTILY 06:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard proposal

I have opened a final proposal on the Village pump to implement some changes to the dispute resolution process. The initial discussion for the idea can be found here, and the proposal outlining the changes that would be made if enacted are are outlined here. In summary, this proposal would create a new noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, move dispute-related ANI threads that don't belong there, to DRN and for a trial, deprecated WQA and the Content noticeboard with these sorts of discussions moved to DRN. Full details on the proposal are at the relevant pages. Thank you. Steven Zhang 08:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

problematic anonymous users at articles about Singapore politicians, possible conflicts of interest and government censorship

I am an involved editor, and cannot use my tools in the dispute; since this involves elements of a content dispute, incivility and sockpuppetry it is my greatest regret that I have to use AN/I. It is my every desire to promote discussion and avoid edit warring; however various anonymous users often repeatedly blank sections (even when they are referenced!) without explanation that are critical of Singapore government / PAP (ruling party) politicians. These same users often write glowing or promotional articles on government ministries or government programmes with hyped-up language without any hint of neutrality. Originally my response to these actions was to revert on sight (especially if the removal was poorly explained or not explained at all) as well as introduce more critical language into the targeted articles; it's been a long time since Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress (which I helped draft) but this I believe is an appropriate action to disincentivise conflict of interest editing by powerful parties.

Originally these editors started out rather bumbling (deleting entire critical, referenced sections on Tin Pei Ling without any explanation) and reverting sourced criticisms (well-known criticisms, in fact). For a while (many Singaporean administrators are away and did not catch this) they could build such biased articles on government ministries without interference -- see this revision on MCYS for as an example.

I also suspect that these editors may be employed by the Singapore government. I do not make this accusation lightly. The first hint (outside of Misplaced Pages) was that during the elections, there was already a massive smear campaign online against the Opposition, sending trolls to make homophobic remarks or cast doubt on Opposition politicians and so forth; the trolls were deduced to be trolls because they came from accounts with virtually no friends, airbrushed or artificial / out of place profile pictures, and were created shortly before election campaign season, unlike commenters (both pro-government and pro-Opposition) who generally had some sign of a real life (and had friends, were not completely anonymous etc). Bloggers also caught the PAP astroturfing with fake accounts, the link given is just one example.

My first major conflict with these editors -- who I suspect to be coming from the same interested party -- started in Vivian Balakrishnan. Because of a discovered very old fundamental copyright violation (an unrelated issue) 330 revisions were deleted, but they can be seen here. Please note the range of different IPs and different usernames that attempt to remove reliably-referenced criticism, but behaviour (involving little discussion and little use of community tools) that makes it seem like they come from the same party. IP User:160.96.200.34 is a Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore address (also are addresses 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37), all which have been involved in possible conflict of interest edits in Singaporean politics, often writing extensive promotional material for politicians and government ministries. Commercial ISPs are also used, especially IPs with a history of possibly COI editing -- see the anonymous editor which edited National Youth Council of Singapore in such an "official" and pompous way that makes me think these editors are from the government. The pattern of these editors have been to ignore warnings, avoid the use of talk pages, and try to battle it out through edit summaries, which is extremely frustrating. I used pending changes protection on that article in the middle of May for that reason, which I think was appropriate since the anonymous edits could still pass through, but other uninvolved editors could always look at the changes -- and generally they did not approve the unexplained reversions.

The latest conflict involves Teo Ser Luck, which I helped expand, and its talk page, over a section I added that discussed a video of a rally this politician spoke at, for which he was ridiculed online for, and made it to Yahoo! News Singapore. Despite the multitude of IPs reverting, I suspect they are one party and that sockpuppetry; government IPs were involved (User:160.96.200.36). When I posted my concern on the talk page about a) why I thought Yahoo! News was a reliable source b) that this was part of a pattern of whitewashing, an anonymous editor would constantly delete my comment off the talk page as "vandalism". It has now been moved out of BLP concerns by another user to Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Teo_Ser_Luck, however I am puzzled because the talk page comment makes no problematic statement against Teo Ser Luck, since I try to discuss the editors involved, and the news source, not the politician himself. The removing user's awareness of previous history at Vivian Balakrishnan, despite the fact that the history has now been deleted (for unrelated copyvio reasons) and other articles at Tin Pei Ling strongly confirms my suspicions of sockpuppetry and common party COI editing.

I have made my case for the inclusion of the statement backed by a Yahoo! News Singapore source (which hires local journalists) on the BLP noticeboard, but I can further elaborate here if needed; my frustration is not with the content in fact, but rather the attitude of censor-with-impunity that possible government-hired editors seem to have. The editor(s) would rather delete entire talk page discussions rather than engage in discussion, and this alarms me. The user simply says "the source is unofficial" (essentially a one word argument) rather than referring to policy or how he or she disagrees with how I characterise the source. This is the most problematic part. I think I am complying with BLP policy as well.

I am glad to be proven wrong on any of my suspicions though. However, if I am not wrong, then I am frightened by the lack of action. If possible, can I have advice if a) CheckUser is an appropriate course of action, and if b) what administrative actions, if any, should be required. Except for pending changes protection I have refrained from using the tools in this issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would support a blanket ban/indef block on all IPs coming from government ministries (in Singapore and indeed just in general). On a related note, I have previously raised concerns with the OP at her talk page over her edits in the matter (which have often bordered on POV, even if admittedly to simply counter the pro-government, government-added POV). COI and POV editing is not new to Misplaced Pages, not even from government agencies, but they are a huge headache when they do occur and even more so when others try to add opposite POV to counter the existing POV. User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#TOC; User talk:La goutte de pluie#WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan and User_talk:Strange_Passerby#fair_use.3F are some relevant related links. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that government IP addresses seem to be mixed with a collection of commercial IP addresses; however the commercial IP addresses do not fluctuate that much. They seem to have the editing patterns of a single party. (see evidence above and below). I have refrained from blocking anyone at this point, or even using semi-protection, on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. Admittedly I am more likely to make edits involving criticisms of the ruling party, but this is really out of the fear that for the past few years whitewashing and astroturfing has proceeded for Singaporean articles with near-impunity, with little administrative attention paid to them. I do not see patterns of Opposition members editing in a self-aggrandized way about their politicians and their plans; if I did I would also be similarly annoyed.Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ho! Since my name has been brought up, guess it's fair I jump in? I've already replied on Strange Passerby's page about where I'm coming from. And yes, while there is a reason to be paranoid seeing the recent unexplained blanket deletions by unknown IPs, it's also a tad unfair to drag in others who do try and make articles more balanced. If the negative incident is referenced and cited properly, and not overly represented in a page (which may be a tactic to try and turn the article negative, excuse me if I'm wrong), I don't delete them. I've learning to be more fair and balanced in my article. Where La Goutte and I seem to "butt heads" is where I view he's being overly negative. While we don't want whitewashing, we also don't wanna sway to the other end of the spectrum and turn wiki pages into "smear" pages. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to be rude or personal, but that's my rationale. If i'm wrong on intents, pls correct me. Thanks. Alverya (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Since you mentioned the earlier U.S. Congress problem, I would point out that part of the 'solution' to that problem was to use Template:CongLinks to provide reliable information about each person. That has a deterrent effect as it provides a check and balance against Wikipedians trying to spin and shade the facts. There's also Template:UK MP links. Perhaps you could find similar sources for Singapore politicians and create a similar template. Not a total solution of course, but it would probably help avoid the typical 'editing by newsbite' which causes undue emphasis on whatever makes the ooh!ooh! news reports. Here's an example of some sources I found. I don't know if they exist, but voting records and speeches in Parliament would be helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry suspicions

What especially strikes me as weird is that 218.186.16.10, a metastable IP involved in this dispute who kept removing my comments off Talk:Teo Ser Luck and in fact listed me as a vandal in Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, was later blocked for being an open proxy; when this occurred, another IP Special:contributions/218.186.16.249 showed up to protest the block (a request that was declined). This to me lends more evidence towards my sockpuppetry suspicions. Both addresses are commercial StarHub addresses that are stable for weeks if not months; it's weird for one address to be detected as a proxy and for a customer to be able to switch freely between these addresses, unless the customer had some special privileges. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a block log entry for .16.10... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check again. "The IP address 218.186.16.10 is blocked globally (full details)." i.e. the IP is blocked on all Wikipedias. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see it on the global log, but not on the enwp block log. Must be admins-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Global blocks are separate from local blocks and are not visible on the local log. Nothing to do with admins. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see the line quoted by Lgdp at all anywhere, that line could be the one visible only to admins. I can see the block entry on the global log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, that line came from Special:Block, so it's admin-only. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The proxyip4 template, as in {{proxyip4 | 218.186.16.10}} should allow anyone (admin or not) to check whether rangeblocks or global blocks cover the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just tried that interesting template. For it to work, the space before the parameter (the IP address) must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI guys, 1.) please bear in mind that its the mid-year school holidays in Singapore right now; 2.) Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature, though one can still "connect and use" another person's household WIFI (stealing bandwidth, in other word), most likely due to an apparent lack of security setup (from my experience, it's a fairly common problem in some of Singapore's tightly arranged HDB flats and/or private apartments); 3.) from my professional/working experience, governmental organisations and linked companies/statutory boards are mostly served by SingNet/SingTel's network (which has always maintained and valued network stability and security). That is all. (PS: @Elle, if I were you, I would have just Semi-PP the articles, they'll move off once they find that they can't disrupt us anymore.) --Dave 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive IP-hopper

Hello. I was wondering if anything can be done to discourage an editor who amuses themselves by disruptive small edits to association footballer bios. They particularly like making repetitive recentist trivial additions, as at this cumulative version of Christopher Samba (2010–11 season section) before someone chopped it. They also adjust the as-of dates for infobox and career stats to nearly-but-not-quite the current date/time, whether it's appropriate to the stats or not, and often edit just to add a few minutes to as-of date/times, as 109.148.56.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or to change maintenance tag dates to the current month, as here. Trouble is, they rarely use the same IP address for long, and I don't know if the addresses used cover too wide a range to be blockable. Some addresses used are:

• 109.145.104.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.160.247.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (this edit made 10 minutes into a match claimed the player had played the whole game)
• 109.145.220.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.148.57.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.145.220.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.145.104.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.150.91.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.149.10.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

For what it's worth, I'll notify the most recent one. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Caste hatred at Nair

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

In a deeply insulting move, Sitush has stated that the meaning of the word Nair is dog in Tamil here. This is insulting 4 million people. The source given is a work by SN Sadasivan, a well known anti-Nair and fanatic. Please show some sensibility and remove this deeply offending quotes. We are fed up with this kind of insults hurled at our community for the last two weeks. Please get some Indian moderators to intervene there. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair page has for some time became a heaven for anti-Nairs. I don't know what is going on. There is a limit for everything. This is just difficult to tolerate. Axxn (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and from a reliable source (biased or otherwise), I see no reason it should be removed. This is a content dispute, which is not for ANI to intervene in. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a content dispute. I have offered to mediate, as I have on other articles. I have also suggested a temporary remedy, which is to moving the "offending" content into the talk page for discussion. Furthermore, I did not add the original content, merely restored it when it was removed because the thing was cited. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair is also the name of a hair-removal product. Whether that's worse than being labeled a "dog", I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is really sad that some users of Nair origin is abusing Misplaced Pages for bragging about their community. These people have a general tactics of exploiting the ignorance of Wikipedians from other countries, who do not know Indian languages or Indian social system. They kept Nair article as a heap of blunders, OR and their personal POV. This in fact affected even the credibility of Misplaced Pages. There are numerous forwarded email messages spreading all over India describing "Why Misplaced Pages is not Reliable?". These mails indicate the article Nair as an example for how two or three users with special Sysop rights and infinite amount of time can keep an entire article far away from truth. Whenever someone try to correct the mistakes in the article, these Nair people start screaming that their community is being insulted. The truth is that this community has a shameful history. Their men were watchers and servants in Brahmin families and their women usually were taken as concubines by Brahmins. They are trying to hide their true history by false claims and fabricated history. The citations they produce are from books written by people of their own community. Before acting, I request administrators to learn more about the Nair community. BTW, the word "Nai" in Tamil and Malayalam means "Dog". You can check any Tamil or Malayalam dictionary. --KondottySultan (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And your women were the concubines of Nairs. I should remember that this guy is a banned user who bragged earlier that he is using a dynamic IP so that no one can trace him. Plz take this in to account. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This this ^ is the sort of stuff myself & two other contributors have been having to deal with for some time on the article & its talk page. POV, OR, insults etc. Despite this, the article is 100 times better now than it was 2 or 3 weeks ago. Sigh. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why am I getting the impression that both KondottySultan and Shannon1488 need to be removed from that page? Unless other admins object, I intend to do this, soon-ish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want me too keep away from that page, then it is OK. But should be applicable for the other guy also. But if you are going to block me, it is not going to be fair. Because I am using a static IP and the Kondotty is using a Dynamic IP. He will just create another username, as he has done before many times. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you name his previous accounts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is from his post a few hours ago:"Even if I had one, you can't tell because I am using a dynamic internet connection and my IP changes each time". His edits doesn't look like that of a newbie. I strongly suspect, but can't confirm. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it was a worrying comment, however you have admitted your statement "as he has done before many times" to be incapable of proof. These sort of accusations are common from yourself and one or two others active on the article. It is worrying. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well it's not a very good usage of the source by Sitush, seeing page 150-151 of the book carefully clarifies that it wasn't considered derogatory at that time and better explains the context of 'dog' (which is pretty important). If that is provided, I'm not sure why Shannon thinks that it should not have a place in the article. So on the surface, it does seem as if there is a bit of POV pushing from both sides. I wish you both would take a break from the article for a few days and approach it refreshed; stop pushing POV and annoying each other - why not simply improve the article without the dramatics? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have lost all my hope here long ago. Calling some one "dog" is extremely offensive, at least in Kerala. I just requested you people to add a source for that from neutral sources, not from well known casteists like Sadasivan. My requests seems to have fallen in deaf ears. What I can do here alone? Shannon1488 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist, as I said previously, I did not add the content. I have offered a solution to the issue on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the word added, how about restored that content on the article? On its own, it is clearly incomplete and lacking context. What other sources verify this claim? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it incomplete? It could give more detail of the mythic narrative, but it does not have to go into great detail to convey the essential point of the story. Anyway, what "claim" do you think needs to be verified? It's a myth. It is clearly sourced. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I restored because it was cited and had been removed despite this. Honestly, I have zero COI, zero POV. The article has been improved substantially & is continuing to improve in the face of attempts to derail. Various viewpoints are offered, sourcing is now in place where previously it was not, etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the full disupted text states: "Legendarily, as narrated in the Brahmin work Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, the term was said to have been bestowed upon three Naga girls by a Brahmin after an image of a dog they created was brought to life and became the escort of Ayyappa". I cannot see what is derogatory or "anti-Nair" about that. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people. If you get some sort of pleasure by insulting my caste then ban people like me from Wiki and go ahead with your perverted stuff. Adding derogatory abuses composed by caste fanatics is a great thing to do in wiki. I have again and again asked for the intervention of an Indian moderator (i.e someone with some knowledge about this subject) to this dispute and you have turned down it all the time. I have tried my best to point out the meaninglessness in this edit. But you people can't understand what I am saying. There are more degrading things written about Nairs by bastard Sadasivan. Read all his books and then fill wiki with his shit. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what Shannon was trying to say. The statement is not given in Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam. Like many other controversial claims by Sadasivan, this claim is also not supported by the references he gives to support it. The etymology is given in several sources like the 1901 Census and no one mentions this strange claim. But still you have devoted 90% of the etymology section to this sick claim, which clearly shows your POV. I don't know why you are having such deep hatred against the Nair community. Seriously, adding it is "not derogatory" is going to make up for all that BS? Shannon already asked you to give a second source for your claim, which you can't find. All you could find is a single reference-less statement by one of the most renowned anti-Nairs. Robbie.Smit (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

These hysterical responses do not do your POV ny good. There is nothing "perverted", "disgusting" or "sick" about this story at all. It's a fairly typical etymological myth. It is flat out false that "90% of the etymology section" is devoted to the claim. The fact that you can make these clearly false statements does not dispose me to believe you when you say that the statement "is not given in Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam." I can find no evidence that Sadasivan is a "caste fanatic", whatever that may mean. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Sadasivan's work branded as POV in many caste-related Talk pages, by non-Nair editors. Given the fact that this guy was an Ezhava (Ezhava to Nair is like Bosnian to Serb), makes me believe that his POV might be even pronounced in statements made in relation to Nairs. The request remains. Why can't someone get another source supporting Sadasivan's view? There are three sections in Etymology. Out of that Sadasivan's quotes covers two of them almost completely. Why this guy is given a 67% weight?

I would like to add one more point. The word "Nayar" is derived from the Prakrit language, which itself is a loanword based on "Nagar" in the Sanskrit language. The word "Nai" in Tamil means dog, sometimes used as a loanword in regions of Kerala bordering Tamil Nadu. But why should the Nambuthiri Brahmins use the Tamil language which they don't know, rather than using the Sanskrit language which they spoke? The word for dog in Malayalam is "Patti". Axxn (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no doubt defenders of the Eternal Glory of any ethnic group will immediately declare anything perceived as 'derogatory' to be the result of 'bias'. This is par for the course on articles about Indian castes. I'm not sure what you mean by 'loanword' here. I don't know how Prakit can have a 'loanword' from Sanskrit, since it is derived from Sanskrit. As for the question of whether the Brahminical source is likely to refer to a Tamil word - I can't see why not. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now it is "defender of the Eternal Glory". I am getting personally attacked again and again for apparently no reason. All I did was to point out some facts. You could have responded in a little bit more civilized way, as I didn't attacked anyone here. And as a matter of fact, I don't expect everyone here to respect others. Your habit of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your views might be a bit disappointing for people like me, who have contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages in a wide variety of articles. Axxn (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well I'm not involved and don't have a POV on the matter, but I just find it mind-boggling that so much effort is being put into this one part of one section. I think the question here is over how reliable the source is for the statement it is making and whether it is being given undue weight. Do you have a response to that concern Paul? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how a single sentence can possibly be "undue weight", especially as it is clearly labelled a legend. In your last edit you were saying that more context for the story was required! You seem to have contradicted your previous objection. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than an objection from me, it's a series of questions about whether it is worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages (is it verifiable in a reliable source and does it accurately summarise all of the relevant content, and is it in compliance with NPOV) and if so, how it should be included on Misplaced Pages (one line mention - too little or too much?). Will probably post more on the talk when I have time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is more than one sentence now. I have added stuff in order to allay concerns etc. This has become a quite frequent necessity on the article as it "heads off at the pass" what otherwise would continue to be numerous point of warfare. The etymology issue is pretty minor in the scale of things. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. It would be useful to have other sources. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that there is a need for alternate sources. I also have raised doubts about Sadavisan as a source for some point in some other article. However, this forum is not the place for the discussion. And there are more pressing concerns, such as the numerous totally uncited statements in the article. Myself and some other recent contributors have done much to improve it but in those areas where citations are still needed our requests for assistance seem to fall on deaf ears, despite the number of talk page contributors who claim a great knowledge of the subject. It is frustrating. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To whom this is frustrating? We had given you a huge number of sources. You ignored almost all of them. Then you cherry-picked one or two and misinterpreted them to use according to your viewpoints. And you still want us to give you citations. When we refused, you called us dogs. This is really the way to go ahead. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Shannon, this rhetoric is not helping and you will find yourself blocked if you continue. Please assume good faith, be civil, and work through dispute resolution to work through the content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, what I see here is a content issue, with a number of people getting somewhat emotional over it while others are trying their best to improve the article with properly sourced content - and it really is an enormous improvement on a few weeks ago. I'd say carry on with the good work, try to stay calm and not get angry (and assume good faith), discuss content and sourcing on the article Talk page, and close this report - there is no admin action required here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What sort of improvement are you talking about? Anyone with at least a partial knowledge of Indian caste system will laugh at this article. Call me biased or whatever you want. But Sitush's gang of editors is incompetent and don't know a thing about Nair community. All you people can do is to insult us. None of the questions which I have asked to Sitush has been answered yet. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well then discuss it at the article's Talk page, and do some research and provide good sources yourself rather than just lashing out at people trying to help. And rein in your ego and your pride - nobody is trying to insult you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boing that this is a content issue and is not accomplishing anything at this venue. Would have preferred moving it to either the RSN or NPOVN depending on which is more relevant to the concern which prompted the report, but if that's too complicated, direct closure is probably appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All I am requesting is the involvement of someone with a good knowledge of this, preferably someone from India. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You can ask for assistance at Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics‎, but like Sitush has warned you, do not canvass; be neutral when you make the request for others to look at the dispute or relevant part of the article talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Or try asking at WP:INDIA - providing content expertise is NOT the job of admins -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User Hobartimus

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

I have objections to behavior of User:Hobartimus in Demographics of Hungary article. He blanked twice my addition (and removed references that I listed too) (see this and this) and when I asked him does he have any evidence that data presented in these references is wrong, he replied with "If you continue like this you'll get blocked for sure". I do not want to be engaged in revert war with this user, but does he have right to remove referenced data without any presented evidence that such data is wrong? His behavior looks like medieval censorship where only certain "truth" is allowed to be said. Can anybody of administrators to examine provided references and to say whether this data should be included into article or not? PANONIAN 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately PANONIAN's quote is not accurate. He left out a part, trying to misreptresent the meaning of the sentence. I said to him "if you continue like this you'll get blocked for sure. Just sayin. Referring to your last sentence of course." reffering to his last sentence on the talk page. And his referred last sentence was "As a Serb, I am proud that my ancestors were not only Slavs, but also Illyrians and Sarmatians, so I do not understand why would you deny your own genetic origin? " I did not mean his edit warring there, rather his behavior, talking about other editor's ancestors or genetic origin is fully blockable if it persists. So it was a reminder to PANONIAN that he should mind what he is writing to other editors, how he addresses content debates... Hobartimus (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Just wanted to add thatI would appreciate if you were to not make content disputes personal in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did not insulted "your genetic origin" or said that something is wrong with it - I just said that it looks to me that "you denying it" by deletion of valid scientific opinions about Hungarian genetic origin (and by term "your", I meant "of your nation", not "personally your" origin). I am not trying to insult anybody or to push my own theories. All I done here was that I presented data from some academic references and I have problem with user who deleting that data because he do not like what he see there. Therefore, some third person should say is data presented in these references acceptable for usage in this article? PANONIAN 14:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear: if I say that "you deny your origin", which would be Slavic according to these sources then it could not be an insult because I would then insult myself since I am Slav. PANONIAN 15:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, where you got idea that I "made content disputes personal"? I am objecting here to your censorship and blanking of referenced content. Knowing you from the past, I am aware that reasonable discussion with you is not possible so I am asking for administrator's help in this case. PANONIAN 15:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to the content related issues on the relevant talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very odd

Would an admin please look over contributions? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, Vjr04jf0fr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be an alternate account of 39vmds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both editors make mostly nonsensical edits with a few useful ones thrown in. Probably a trolling attempt. Checkuser?  Sandstein  17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Vjr04jf0fr4 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 39vmds (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Clommlon Fiepss (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gi5nfkr489rnJUHRic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vjr04jf0fr4 was created for the explicit purpose of busting autoconfirmed, as evidenced by this edit here. 39vmds seems to be engaging in disruption and has similarly inquired about being able to edit semi-protected articles; moreover, 39vmds' edits do not seem to indicate any effort of being a constructive editor at all. The same applies to Clommlon Fiepss and Gi5nfkr489rnJUHRic. As such, I have indefinitely blocked all of them as sock puppets. –MuZemike 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Burntout123 and Neovandalism article

Backstory: About two days ago, Burntout123 (talk · contribs) repeatedly attempted to create an article for burnt-out diabetes mellitus. The article had been deleted as a result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus; the text of the recreated article was identical to the version from the AfD. After repeated warnings, the user was finally blocked for 31 hours. He then created a new account, Burntout1234 (talk · contribs), which he then used to discuss the AfD with the deleting admin; however, another admin blocked him as a sockpuppet.

So, the original block to the main account expired today. There's been no attempt to discuss the deletion or file a DRV. Instead, he's created an article on neovandalism, which includes the following text: "The concept of neovandalism or regulated vandalism pertains to orchestrated efforts by old and new Misplaced Pages users to delete unwanted pages or information in Misplaced Pages using highly regulated approaches including obtaining supports from administrators. … The concept was first developed during a heated discussion about the deletion of burnt-out diabetes mellitus."

At best, this is a neologism and should be deleted—and a snowball-clause deletion, IMHO, would be in order. At worst, this is a personal attack against myself, the admin who closed the AfD, and the other editors involved with this user—although I don't feel attacked enough to tag it for G10 and blank the page.

I'm too close to the situation to either delete the page or to act otherwise as a result of this page creation. Accordingly, I'm filing this notice here so that administrators who have been previously uninvolved with the situation may address it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I truly apologize to C.Fred or anybody who I might have caused trouble for. This was not intentional. Second, the efforts to revive burnt-out diabetes mellitus via using what is apparentky called doppelgänger was the results of my deficient familiarity with the Misplaced Pages rules and regulations. In the past 30 hours I have made sincere efforts to learn more and am quite fascinated by Misplaced Pages and its resources and rules. I do appreciate the efforst and time by Misplaced Pages administrators. Third, please do not discredit the author in order to discredit the page neovandalism. We can adjust the content to make sure it not include any personal attack. Speedy deletion is not the solution. In the interest of true spirit of Misplaced Pages and true tolerance, please do not speedy-delete this page. Feel free to adjust the content and contribute, and please allow timely discussion. Many thanks. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 19:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

The above editor also made some redirects: Regulated vandalism, Regulated vanadlism (sic!) which needs to be speedied as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the administrators managed to kill the new page neovandalism after just a few minutes of its short existence, one wonders if this is the future of Misplaced Pages, in that any new page or concept that criticizes administrators and their authority is subject to speedy-deletion and snow-balling? Is it not in sharp contradistinction to the very spirit of the original free Misplaced Pages? Do some administrators feel so threatened by a new concept? Do they really feel that they may be associated with neovandalism that they snow-ball it in minutes and burry it so fast? Eventually a courageous administrator from among yourself may raise the issue. Until then let's hope this was not the start of the end of free Misplaced Pages. To_Expand_Tolerance_

I see no purpose for such an "article" in article space. If you want to write an essay in your own User space, it might be allowed, so long as you make no personal attacks on individuals. See WP:NPA. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with the content in his userspace either, so I've taken the liberty of placing it there at User:Burntout123/Neovandalism. Burntout, virtually all content about Misplaced Pages itself belongs outside of the mainspace, so do not move this back. lifebaka++ 20:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of adding the "noindex" template (please confirm I did it correctly), as this seems to be largely a generalized complaint about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Bugs, that's fine. Sorry I forgot to add it myself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. You created Burntout1234 for the explicit purpose of harassing other users; that is clear and unambiguous disruption via sock puppetry, and you know it. I'm sorry, but even a newcomer should be able to realize that that is wrong. –MuZemike 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I will reiterate the new definition of "vandalism" to those who are unaware: any edit in which another user disagrees with. –MuZemike 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading the so-called article, the only conclusion is that it violates wp:synth and wp:OR. Not to mention that it's also a thinly veiled attack page. --Blackmane (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is basically a complaint about another article having been deleted. It might help his case (or at least in the reading of the article) if he would define these various terms instead of putting red-links in. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The way xe uses redlinks seems more like xe's emphasising those terms, instead of bolding them. Redlinks do stand out. --Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bjornsonw

Bjornsonw (talk · contribs) is posting disruptive rants at Talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion; I've reverted twice, so someone else should have a look. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from below, I had it open to a new section for the last hour or so =p) User:Bjornsonw posted something of a small, but mostly coherent, rant about the article not being neutral, and then myself and another editor commented. He then proceeded to put in some other material which made the whole thing well, utterly incoherent (though I do know the group of rebbes he's talking about, the rest is... idk what). This new version was then removed and he proceeded to re-add it, that was deleted and then it was re-added again, and then you can guess what happened next. You can see all the History if you want the play-by-play ofc. I don't want to make a personal judgement about the guy (that might be a PA), but it seems like he might not be all there. That is solely my opinion based on what he posted though, unless he is trolling and trying to make it look that way. There is also this and this Could someone look into this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, his first post wasn't really out of line, but it went off the rails with later additions. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is giving indefinite full protection to the talk page of a non-blocked user acceptable? User:Bwilkins thinks it is. I'd like to hear other opinions. Using his admin bit when he's clearly involved seems like a violation of every admin guideline I've ever read. † Misericord (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The user Rpeh probably ought to be blocked, but typically users who claim to be retired don't get blocked. Since he claims to be retired, though, full-protecting his talk page shouldn't really make any difference, eh? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Under all the circumstances, Bwinkins' action is understandable. There is nothing more that will usefully take place on Rpeh's talkpage unless Rpeh decides to resume contributing, and at that point he or she can request unprotection, which should promptly take place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it curious that this editor appeared almost immediately after the "retirement" of the supposedly mistreated user, has acknowledged use of an IP address that geolocates to the same (admittedly large) metropolitan area as the retired user claimed to edit from, immediately began editing with Twinkle, and uses pretty much the same edit summary phrasing as the retired user? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, a little AGF, please. He's been online for almost a week now, and a week is plenty of time for socks newbies to learn the ropes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The account has to be new, they haven't yet found their way to User talk:Bwilkins, near as I can tell. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misericord and Rpeh are  Likely the same person. TNXMan 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not the same person. Well done to the admin cabal for its usual closing of ranks - exactly as I said would happen. You're always allowed to violate your own rules but woe bedide anyone outside the club who does the same. Two editors lost. Looking at Misericord's edits he was doing a pretty good anti-vandal job. Good luck replacing him. 212.139.228.11 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

IP hopping infobox bloater

Aware editors will note that a deleted template has been resurrected. I believe this was done in a deliberate attempt to curb the editor I am posting about, as hir current behavior stems from even more egregious edits before the template switch was currently implemented . If one is adverse to the recreation of the template please do not address it here: this is about an editor who is subverting/disregarding consensus.

173.61.156.122 is the latest address of IP hopper who believes trivial mentions should be added to Buffyverse articles. As an example, the recent history of Riley Finn shows repeated attempts to insert what is deemed "bloat" (trivial references that do little to nothing to explain the subject) into the infobox. Attempts at correction have failed , as have edit summaries (not an exhaustive list).

Said editor does, in my opinion, excellent work in formatting BLPs (not exhaustive and does not show knee-jerk reverts to tag moving), yet not enough to override the above infobox bloating nor of adding unlicensed or inappropriate images to articles (not exhaustive), and the occasional bad ref .

I am aware that IP hoppers pose a problem in the way of censure, yet still I hope that some means can be found to show 173... that simply being able to change IPs does not give one a license to subvert consensus or project goals. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This deserves admin attention on its merits, I'm sure, but also because of the charming originality of its homely title. Anyone can issue a trout template, but it takes a truly imaginative person to come up with "IP hopping infobox bloater". I'll certainly use the phrase next time someone's being annoying.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to block disruptive anon/IP user

At WQA, we are having a situation with a disruptive IP (24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has engaged in edit-warring (in excess of 3RR), incivility, trolling, and other forms of problematic behavior which are exhausting practically everyone it appears to come into contact with. It has blanked all of the warnings and messages it has received on its talk page too. Accordingly, I am requesting an admin to block this IP from disrupting the project further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to report 3RR violations (which I contest, anyway.) It also would have been nice for User:Ncmvocalist to notify me at my talk page that he/she was requesting a block. I'd encourage reviewing admins to consider that I'm not obligated to keep warnings on my talk page, and there are no diffs provided for the allegations of "incivility" and "trolling". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Some of the comments left by the IP indicate that we are not dealing with a newbie, and the overall effect of the edits was disruptive. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have also revoked talk page access for the IP because of his insistent removal of relevant comments. He has threatened to take me to arbitration when his block expires; I suspect that the three blocks for disruptive editing since the IP's first edit in May of this year will result in ArbCom declining to hear the case. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymiss Madchen, undiscussed Eastern European page moves.

User:Anonymiss_Madchen has been engaging in a series of undiscussed moves involving controversial Eastern Europe topics. It would be apposite if they were warned regarding Eastern European matters, and their moves reverted until they are appropriately discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to improve Misplaced Pages by decreasing the chances that Nazi sympathizers would interpret the article as being only about German victims and use it as a way to publish their propaganda.

--Anonymiss Madchen 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor an anti-fascist organisation. We do not write with an audience of Nazi sympathisers in mind, but with the various policies and guidelines regarding reliable sourcing, neutral points of view, original research, selecting appropriate article title topics, and through the use of consensus with other editors (especially when making inherently controversial edits). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would like the editor named warned in relation to DIGWUREN for the personal attacks (accusations of Nazism) and soapboxing in these edits diff Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Editor warned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

Just FYI, there is a backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection going back several hours. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog because I am awesome. AlexiusHoratius 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate responses to socks

This ANI is being opened in order to call attention to recent responses to sockpuppetry in the A/I and I/P topic areas that are potentially disruptive or that run counter to the spirit of Misplaced Pages's policies. It's universally acknowledged that the A/I and I/P topic areas suffer more than any other topic area on Misplaced Pages from intense daily sockpuppet incursions into articles, discussion pages, and user talk pages. These socks vote at AfDs, edit war, provoke flame wars, and generally interfere with the healthy functioning of the Project. The problem, though, is that sometimes users' responses to sockpuppets can be nearly and even more disruptive. Below are some specific incidents:

Deleting Discussion page comments ()

It will sometimes happen that a sock will initiate a discussion parallel to a content dispute at an article. Another user will engage the sock under the impression that he's an innocent anonymous IP contributor. Later, though, certain clues will alert the registered user that the IP is a sock, whereupon he will delete all the comments, including his own. Meanwhile, though, the dialog will have attracted the involvement of other contributors such that deleting the preceding conversation interrupts the flow of the page.

A query at the Help Desk () suggested it may be best to simply leave the discussion intact.

Deleting or striking out Talk page comments ()

Other times the sock will be active at a user's Talk page – not necessarily posting vandalism in the strict sense, though WP:BAN does suggest that there's no difference. Ordinarily, users aren't supposed to edit each other's Talk pages beyond leaving comments on them. Can ordinary users edit the comments of socks at other users' Talk pages without the Talk page owner's consent?

Personally attacking socks ()

The worst problem is when a user will lash out at the sock with vituperative insults. In the case cited directly above, the attack was prior to the sock's formal conviction. Is it alright to personally attack a sock while an investigation into his identity is pending? Is it alright to personally attack a sock after his identity has been confirmed?—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's socks of blocked users you are talking about, they are of course not allowed to edit anywhere. I would remove threads started by such users also. In your example above, the only one to respond to the discussion started by the sock, was the person who ultimately removed the whole thread. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, when multiple people have answered, it is often better to not remove the thread.

As for the personal attacks, of course it's not alright to attack socks, per WP:NPA, whether it is before or after confirming their identity. I hardly consider calling someone compulsive and unethical an attack though. It's certainly not the nicest thing to say, but unless it was a completely baseless assertion, we generally don't have such a low threshold for invoking WP:NPA.--Atlan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I may need to move Biosketch to my naughty list of the many editors in the I-P conflict topic area who apparently seek to protect and facilitate the actions of sockpuppets that do so much damage to the proper functioning of the topic area through the use of deception. As I tried to explain on my talk page, there is in my view a rather important difference between objective evidence based statements of fact using terminology that conveys accurate information and evidence-less derogatory personal attacks. There is also a difference between the set of legitimate contributors here to build an encyclopedia based on policy and banned users who cannot be here and cannot do or say anything and a difference between legitimate editing and meatpuppeting for sockpuppets. It seems to me that Biosketch cannot recognise when I make personal attacks probably because I don't make them. They would look quite different from the entirely accurate comment I made on Nableezy's page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the examples Biosketch gave are all about socks supporting one side of the I-P conflict? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@SH: Although I agree with what you are getting at, the tone of the comment was close enough to a middle finger that you shouldn't do it. It only served to foster the battlefield mentality and bait the guy. If another editor raised an eyebrow at it, it shows that it caused some unneeded waves. Consider ow much easier it would have been if you would have not made the comment at all. Getting a lecture on decorum from me. Yeah, that must be getting a snicker.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded waves indeed. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is way too much attention Ledenierhomme deserves.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the particular sock (Ledenierhomme) that I made a comment about cannot be characterized as simply as supporting one side of the I-P conflict. They have broad areas of interest, part of which involves advocating on behalf of the State of Israel, but that is really neither here nor there. A sock is a sock. @Cptnono, a lecture on decorum from you is fine. I take your point but I disagree. What I do in the topic area can't depend on Biosketch's eyebrow movements. I considered simply deleting the sock's comment immediately since it was clearly cynically made to influence a discussion about the overturning of the unjustified indef blocking of an editor who had identified the sock and had them blocked on several occasions. I decided to leave it be, provide context and contact an admin to implement a range block. I've done it again for the same sock since then. This guy will not stop unless everyone helps to make him stop. I'm not fostering a battlefield mentality. Like many others in the topic area, he already has a battlefield mentality. I'm not a combatant in a battle, I'm an editor trying to stop sockpuppetry, one of the main catalysts for conflict and disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch; nothing there looks problematic, simply normal responses to socks. What specific administrative action are you requesting? (otherwise this should probably be closed for WP:DENY reasons, no need to give these socks another platform) --Errant 09:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards