Home

Talk Page

Userboxes

Barnstars

Contributions

Email (Disabled)

Hello O. Looks like we are tracking the same editor. Do you happen to know if a speedy should be used on this Template:Infobox Developer and if so which one? Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that you and Everymorning are on the case at ANI. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: IDK what to do with that template. I'll mention it at the ANI discussion. Might wind up going to WP:TFD. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I'd be happy to move it, but if you were doing it anyway.... Thank you so much for the alert! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: No problem, I'm happy to help out! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I was happy to help! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the vandalism that I missed on this. It's been hard to keep up with the frequent vandalism to this article today. I have asked for page protection, which I do infrequently, for this page because of the high level of vandalism by several IP users today. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I probably would have missed it too; I only caught it due briefly checking the page history after noticing the RfPP. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction on your recent ANI closure. I am pretty sure MyTuppence was only blocked for 1 week. The sock account was indeffed. Thanks for taking care of the close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: corrected, whoops on my part. Thank you! -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently using this IP address (it's a public computer). I was attempting to figure out how to propose for deletion the article Yonassan Gershom. The reason I was attempting to do so is because this page is written by the person of the article. It's a self-promotion biopic. Being from Minnesota, Mr.Gershom is not WP:Notable either nationally or regionally. In Minnesota, he is a local author and that's about as notable as he is. While the original AFD discussion added some thoughts about links to the Mineapolis Star Tribune - it was known to promote local books. If you asked soneome from Miami who Yonassan Gershom is they wouldn't be able to tell you. Even a simple google search produces limited results that appear to be self-promoted or discuss his books (of which have limited distribution). All respect to Mr. Gershom - he isn't wikipedia article worthy. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanksamurai: If you have access to twinkle, you can use it to more easily request the deletion of pages (see WP:Twinkle/doc#XfD (deletion discussions) for more details). Otherwise, see WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion for details on how to manually nominate the page for deletion. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to update the information on this page and you keep deleting it and putting the old information back up which is not accurate and true. Why do you keep doing it? and can you please stop. Michelle has not modeled since 2005, nor ihas she been with Next Model management then. Montana108 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping my userpage clean of vandalism. I may not contribute stuff anymore, but your cleaning did not go unnoticed :) Lucky13pjn (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	🙂 Sahaib (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Wikipedia's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.

Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested. The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Casual_.28subculture.29_.E2.80.8E

In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chaheel_Riens

This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casual_%28subculture%29&action=history

This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before. I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They [RB's wording] made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions. Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. Tou should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise iunreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [13], [14], [15], [16]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [17] + my response: [18] + [19]; [20] + [21]; [22] + [23] + [24] + [25]; [26] + [27] + [28] + [29] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([30]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [31]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [32] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [33]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [34])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tendentious editing: [35] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion. 

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic").  I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More, under false pretexts: [36], [37]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page

1 2 3

Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-4 5 6 7 8

Governing Body-9 10 11 12

Vyselink (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[38] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[39] in regard to four words in one sentence[40] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[41] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)

Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.

In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Wikipedia, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.

It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.

For several years, I have edited Wikipedia articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.

When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.

There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Wikipedia processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no 'associates' on Wikipedia.

It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See [42][43] and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.

It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates"[44]. That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history. As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry [45] continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. The user admits he is behind both IP addresses[53] but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Wikipedia game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!

So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)

You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been some historical revisionism of the IP editor's 'kindness'.[54]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After making bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted him,[55][56][57][58] IP editor has since gone on a rampage of blatant POV editing on a range of JW articles. EdJohnston has blocked IP access to some articles he has already tampered with, but he continues to find others, including Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Some prompt blocking action would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus,[59] about sources[60] (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes,[61] and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him[62]; says all but one were him[63]). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.[64]

It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the userlinks:

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

I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Earlier tonight, I was blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He also added me to the ArbCom sanctions log. Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to Emma Sulkowicz - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to The Daily Beast to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.[65]

I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) per WP:BLP. I did engage on the talk page, but I also reverted because I felt that this was a clear case of WP:CRYBLP - the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.

I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of "the accused" is widely reported, there can't be a BLP issue. And quoting him and his family should be considered, in order to give some balance to the story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the BLP discretionary sanctions, so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? Kelly ^hi! 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kelly, FYI the DS alert was here. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is here (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  A BLP violation on The Federalist (website)? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? Kelly ^hi! 01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on multiple articles under arbcom sanctions, including Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson.[66][67] He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidence please. Kelly ^hi! 01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.

As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? Kelly ^hi! 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. GoldenRing (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"

HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? 70.189.56.157 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the IPs third edit ever. BMK (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have been editing from IPs for the better part of a decade. Personally, I keep ANI bookmarked for the delicious drama. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:

  1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?

  2. What part of WP:BLP policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- MrX 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous block: NY Daily News 9 news AustraliaWashington Post. "BLP" is not supposed to be a magic wand someone can wave because they WP:IDLI an edit. NE Ent 02:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times.- MrX 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Searches related to Emma Sulkowicz"... slate... NE Ent 02:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. Personally, I'd have warned Kelly first, but Kelly's subsequent behaviour has demonstrated a warning would have likely been ineffective. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly appears to have violated the conditions of her unblock by re-adding name [68] shortly after agreeing to not do so as a condition of her unblock request. [69]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information was reported by the New York Times.[70] Is there a better source? Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.

  Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Wikipedia increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father)[71] Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. Kelly ^hi! 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - MrX 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name, that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned; note that this can be done under discretionary sanctions. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain exactly why I was warned for BLP violations to begin with? I have an extensive history of protecting BLPs. Check the Sarah Palin arbitration case that got Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) banned. Kelly ^hi! 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the edits. There was no view "pushed". It merely replaced "the accused" with "Paul Nungesser". That's it. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. This case (like many involving similar allegations) is an absolute minefield. Anyone curious to know more should read the abovementioned NYT article. Maybe one person is guilty, maybe another person is innocent, maybe it's a complicated mixture. Columbia University and/or the judicial system will be hard-pressed to determine Truth here; Wikipedia (let alone AN/I) certainly won't, and must do its best to follow RS and BLP policy in deciding what and how to report. Whether or not to mention the guy's name, whether that helps or hurts his case, whether it is what he would or wouldn't want -- none of these questions is trivial, they're all difficult, and not at all to be decided in a moment by one user. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name," but we must discuss this enough to say if the BLP is "legitimate" or not right? Or in other words was the BLP objection in "good-faith"? If it was, then there is a problem with restoring it, if not then it wasn't. In this case however WP:BLPCRIME seems to put enough of a reason to consider not including his name (even if he came out publicly). The only reason to include his name as he has not yet been convicted would be if he wanted his name out there. I don't quite see that being the case here (and needless to say that was not demonstrated prior to the revert which it should have been if that was the reason). So the block seems good to me. So the only question then is what is the remedy? A block is not to be used to punish and I think using a block at this point would be inappropriate. So what is the remedy that you are seeking? A topic ban? From what exactly? --Obsidi (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "legitimate" BLP concern was bogus, maybe the one who claimed there was a concern is the one who should be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't the article title itself a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? GoldenRing (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this person notable per Wikipedia standards? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources covering her story over a pretty decent amount of time or, in other words, "per GNG". You can play coy all you like, Bugs, but it doesn't help anyone, least of all Kelly. And restoring information when legitimate (meaning "not crazy") BLP objections are brought up is always going to lead to a predictable outcome. Next, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of putting Wikipedia in a position of advocacy. Next. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know issues like that should be reported at WP:SPI, but I don't know who is the sockmaster, so I'll do the thing here.

The thing is that: An user was editing while logged out and has put an uncivil comment at User talk:Malik Shabazz, so I removed it and gave the user a level 1 npa user warning. Then, I went to his contributions and reverted an edit that was supposely "vandalism revert", but it was just a "revert of vandalism revert", since it was just a re-add of nowiki tags on a template that screwed it up. He then sended me a message which harassed an administrator, so I replied to it and gave him a level 2 harass user warning, and left a Talkback template just in case. Then, he replied to me saying that I was a "budding administrator" and that I was not here to contribute to the encyclopedia only because I removed his comment, gave the level 2 warning and left him a Talkback template, then the user said that I was not able to really improve articles just because I didn't know to spell "harass". After that, I replied to him saying I was not an administrator (since I accidentally misinterpreted the thing) and that I fight vandalism which counts as being here to build an encyclopedia, and told him to take a look at WP:NOTNOTHERE and that he is the one that appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia. Then he told me to look at WP:NOTNOTHERE, which I had already did, just because he said that he was expressing unpopular opinions in a "non-disruptive manner". Then I told him that he was expressing unpopular opinions in a disruptive manner because at least 85% of his contributions were uncivil comments which appears to meet WP:NOTHERE. Then he told me I was not civil just because I didn't add "Thanks" or "Regards" at the end of my messages, so I told him that that applies only to level 1 and some level 2 user warning templates. Then he told me he had made about a thousand constructive edits to Wikipedia on various IP addresses and an user account, and that he has edited while logged out just to not risk being blocked by expressing such unpopular opinions. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The learned administrators here can, as can anybody else, see what I told you and what you told me by looking at the discussion itself. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ip address might be useful. Not sure what can be done without some more information but we might be able to do some detective work to figure something out (no promises mind you). Amortias (T) (C) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you! 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that is 223.227.98.130. Amortias (T)(C) 19:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hardblocked the IP, let's see what happens. — east718 | talk | 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this post here, ToonLucas22 has provided a public exhibition of his appalling writing skills. From writing "Then" repeatedly and without succeeding it with a comma, to the usage of incorrect English constructs like "an user" not one, but two times. His post should removed as soon as possible from here because if a normal reader chances upon this page, he would be left wondering whether this is the quality standard of those of who write for Wikipedia.

ToonLucas22 is unfit for editing Wikipedia because (i) he cannot spell simple English words, (ii) he easily misinterprets others' comments, and (iii) he forgets to sign his posts. All this happened in a single discussion (User talk:ToonLucas22#Reply to comment on User talk:223.227.98.130). Besides, he is prone to needlessly replying to the snide comments of fun-seeking editors, showing his mental and emotional incapability to continue on Wikipedia. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even know English is not my main language? And it looks like you changed your IP in an attempt to evade a block and/or avoid scrutiny. Lets begin answering: (i) As I said, English is not my main language, but I have a lot of knowledge, though not full knowledge. (ii) I know humorous content is acceptable, but your uncivil comments are just not humorous. (iii) It is common to forget to sign a post for when someone is rushed dealing with other editors. Now stop attempting to avoid blocks. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im hearing a duck form the direction of 223.227.222.20 (talk · contribs).Amortias (T)(C) 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk · contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I reverted his edit to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he immediately reverted back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I requested, the history logs were moved to May 2014 Odessa clashes from 2014 Odessa clashes. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho and Anthony Appleyard: Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes article was moved to 2014 Odessa clashes as the result of an RM now located at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. Number 57 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See (A) User talk:Anthony Appleyard#!!!! and (B) this edit of the history-merge request page. In (B) I realize that I may have misunderstood what "the proposed article" and "that article" meant :: that is another reason for people writing instructions to repeat names and avoid elegant variation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Wikipedia's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of Wikipedia's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.

@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, @Callanecc:. Only a few SPI clerks have the CU right and coincidentally all CUs are admins AFAIK, right? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be considered too impatient if reasked now if anyone has an update to my latest paragraph here now? Autosigned by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[78] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alesgeriy (talk · contribs), a newly registered user, added a problematic section to Akdamar Island. He cites http://www.historyoftruth.com/, a clearly POV website which is devoted to the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. Interestingly, he calls the genocide "1915 incidents", which is a widely used phrase in denialist circles.

Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".

He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցի ^talk 17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriy ^talk

First, and most important, this is not vandalism. Also, the image does not belong on wikipedia. It is already tagged with copyvio speedy deletion. As well, this source does not seem to be reliable. Basically, the whole thing does not belong here. If you believe it does, then please link to why you think it belongs. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) is vandalism. ^talk

I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you trying to white wash of the act of this users as "editing" ? that is hypocritical on your part, at the same time your behavior harassment me with your baseless claimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alesgeriy: whoever's right, it's not vandalism. I won't comment on what it is, but it isn't vandalism. —George8211 / T 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i indicate the fact which is pretty proper, but your behavior towards this issue is hypocritical and rude which i do not recommend to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of harassing you for me indicating that your behavior is verging on harassment. This will get us nowhere. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend a block of Alesgeriy for competency reasons (including very strange use of links). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orduin: Can something be already done about this? Is it not clear that this single-purpose user is not here to contribute to Wikipedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can some one immediately pls stop the vandalismus and harassment of the above member ? thanks regards.. Alesgeriy (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: see this. I recommend a block per WP:NOTHERE and bordering on edit warring.

@Alesgeriy: these removals are cited in wikipedia policy, and are not 'baseless'. Please stop labeling the dispute as vandalism. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orduin: you don't saying the True WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is appropriate. this removal are not not cited in wikipedia policy and you vandalising my entry. you should stop immediately your vandalism and harassment . i will report you because of your hypocritical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2015‎

There is already a report going on, unless you have missed the discussion we are having now. I will say no more on the subject, because you are not listening to what we are saying. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orduin: my sources are reliable, one of them was also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? you acting hypocritical Alesgeriy (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Alesgeriy (talk · contribs) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. Those sanctions cover "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or related conflicts". This puts him on notice that he is expected to follow Wikipedia policy from now on. If he is uncertain about the reliable sourcing rules, he could ask for feedback at WP:RSN. If you persist in adding material to Wikipedia that doesn't follow our sourcing rules, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(Strike per above comment)This is in direct violation to a decision from the Arbitration committee. A part of the final decision states: 2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. These sources are concidered propagandic. Alesgeriy has been warned by an admin over this. Also, you have broken the 3RR.

As well, the sources you have all added, are written completely in Turkish, which means that not everyone on the English wikipedia can verify these sources.

Please consider thoughtful discussion before you call me "hypocrite" again. That is baseless, unlike the comments I have made utilizing wikipedia policy and the article history. When you make an accusation, it must be supported with evidence, or it will be treated as a personal attack. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: one of this sources is also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? but user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) vandalising my entry with this comment "Turkish government aggressively denies the genocide; whether or not you cite the Grand Assembly means nothing" wut? my entry is not about genocide at all, and how can call this guy the turkish piarlament "means nothing" seriously ? why you don't stop this troll and vandal? Alesgeriy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for someone to be blocked because they disagree with your point of view is a very bad practice. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Turkish (especially government-affiliated sources) are no less POV than the source you initially provided.

@EdJohnston: Can you please take action? At least two third-party users have explicitly stated their support for blocking this single-purpose account. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orduin: so your point? so that you have proven your hypocritical approach. do you think wikipedia based about your own views and intereses? yes, i was right, you vandalising my entry just because of your own political views and this kind behavior do not contradicted with wiki terms. wikipedia is not your own toy. you should immediately stop your approach about this issue because you are not objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2015‎

I have no political views on this matter. I did not even know about this article and events until I looked into this report. Your considering that I have predetermined thoughts on this event is incorrect. I focus on wiki policy. Your comment is harassment to get me out of this discussion, which I find very offensive. I got involved, now there is nothing you can do to get me to stop being involved. You are attacking everyone you have issue with. This will alienate any support you might have gotten. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orduin: pls stop your aggressive attitude towards me, you playing with words and move away from the subject. i'm not agree with you, you don't give an proper answer but furthermore insulting me with such vulgar ascriptions

first, my entry is "not" about genocide etc. "is about the Commemoration in Akdamar Island, and sources proves that.

2. the source of the second entry which is about a monument, and is the "original" proposal. and you you call that is POV.? you denying an original source ? how can you do that? you acting just with your personal viewpoint and against the wiki terms this which is unacceptable according to your logic %80 of the comments for Akdamar Island is nonsense , we can not continue in this way at all Alesgeriy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, do we have a problem here. One of these sources refer to Armenians as "animals" (Turkish: Hayvanlara). The other source claims that Armenians killed Turks between the years 1915-18. That's a ridiculous statement since all Armenians living in the region were obliterated by the Turkish government by early 1915. Interestingly enough, the claim is made by a senior member of an ultra-nationalist Turkish organization called ASIMDER, which stands for the "International Association to Fight Unfounded Armenian Allegations". This organization had at once targeted Armenian schools, churches, foundations and individuals as part of an anti-Armenian hate campaign (see here for more information). The other source is by the Turkish government, the leading propagator of Armenian Genocide denial in the world. I found no neutral source, meaning non-Turkish or non-Armenian prime sources, that says Armenians raped women or that 50 or so women killed themselves. It appears that that story is entirely fabricated. As for the user's conduct, it just keeps getting worse. He has reverted yet again, well surpassing the 3RR mark. And he continues calls other user's edits vandalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what did you think about what Armenian rebels did during the revolt? before genocide or exile? distribute flowers ? btw this incident is happenend on 17 april 1915 and also your debate is off topic, because in my entry i have not mention such "animals" like words. seems you have also your own viewpoints? I repeat, my entry is about memorial and monument in Akdamar Island. with just a little surf on Internet do not be shy, you can also find many article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "rebellion". It was an act of self-defense by the Armenians. The Armenians, in fear of a massacre by their own government, defended themselves from death marches and genocide. Cevdet Bey, the governor of Van, started a campaign of mass murder against Armenians throughout Van. The reports of Clarence Ussher, Ernest Yarrow, Elizabeth Ussher, Grace Knapp, and others all point to the fact that Cevdet Bey wanted to annihilate all Armenians in Van. The "incident" you refer could not have happened on 17 April 1915 because Russian soldiers did not arrive in Van until late May. There's also no evidence that Russian and Armenian soldiers massacred the Turkish population. No primary source makes such a claim. The only people who make such baseless claims are ultra-nationalist Turks whose sole mission is to deny the genocide. And I never said you called Armenians "animals', but I did say that the sources you provide refer to Armenians as such. By the way, it's absolutely pointless to add any information about the monument since it was never built (see here). Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne your claimes is not to taken seriously you talking nonsense and your behavior is hypocritical you are an political propagandist and you are not neutral. i my self don't deny genocide, but you deny what armenian rebels before 1915 did. there is still survived Turkish/Kurdish victims from this massacre. here is no need to debate about this issue. Alesgeriy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uninvolvededitor At best, there's a deep WP:COMPETENCE issue here demonstrated in Alesgeriy's inability to acknowledge the reasons others are objecting to his edit. Alesgeriy, if you were prohibited from making these edits, how would you spend your time at Wikipedia? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff [82]

Diff [83]

User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.

Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Wikipedia, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.88.36.157 is you as well, I presume. BMK (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And User:80.212.4.12. Your edits to John Fogerty and Hoodoo (John Fogerty album) were deleted by a number of editors as being OR, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Didn't stop you from repeatedly restoring, though. That behavior got one article protected, and got one two of your IPs temp blocked. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That last IP also left disparaging notes to Binksternet on his talk page. There's a pattern here. BMK (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎85.164.61.86 joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be fair. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what's not fair is the situation right now. BMK (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.88.88.22.29 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules? Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP? Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a crash course? You seem to have the mind of a steel trap.- MrX 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ Priceless. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - good one. Funny - tnx for inserting some much needed humor into this. :-) But not really helpful re issue.88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I always heed the advice of IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found smth on it, how to edit WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide.

Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). 88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.

Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IP's ignorance of the source of my user ID, I can only say this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC

To answer your question 88.88.22.29, you might want to try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. When someone asks for help we should direct them to a place where they can learn or ask questions like Wikipedia:Teahouse. Maybe we can point new or unsure editors in this direction? This conversation above seems unhelpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the IP. Let me do some cleanup. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Sergei Lukyanenko for one year. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case user MrX's comment was a bit too subtle, it was a user called Steeletrap (talk · contribs) who was calling Binksternet "Binky" in a complaint from last May.[84] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that. Incidentally, all the IPs listed above are from the same region of Norway, most of them from the same city. BMK (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious correlation between Steeletrap's article editing and that of the IPs listed above, and "Binky" is, unfortunately. probably a fairly obvious choice for someone attempting to bug Binksternet, so I'd say offhand that there's probably no connection there. BMK (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Someone was wondering where they had seen this "Binky" stuff before. I searched the archive for that word, and the Steeletrap item was the first example that came up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good retort would be to call the IP "Bunky", as in the late Eddie Lawrence's schtick.[85] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I advise looking a little closer. I found several unambiguous editing similarities.- MrX 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hint? Specific enough similarities to justify an SPI? BMK (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK: Yes, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is strong enough for a duck block. Besides the "Binky" comment, I found six other traits shared by both editors. I'm not sure whether the level of disruption justifies the effort though. I don't want to give hints so the sock learns how to avoid detection. If I pursue it, I will email the evidence to Arbcom or an admin.- MrX 13:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll leave it in your hands. BMK (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This community is a joke! Mister X ublicly accuses me of being a liar and creating a fake account. But he refuses to provide any evidence for this charge. And he ignores the obvious counter-evidence: the fact that I edit from America and this gentleman edits from Norway.

I challenge Mister X to publicly state what his "evidence" against me is. I think the charge is pure speculation, based only on the "binky" connection, and that he lied about having additional evidence. Unlike many users here, I am a serious person with a serious reputation. I would never engage in "socking," which is not only dishonest and immature but attacks the basic integrity of WP. A major problem with WP--and its Revenge of the C Students style culture--is that no one abides by basic standards of evidence before making a change. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet, I would be interested in your opinion on the charge against me. Having dealt with me and the other guy who called you "binky," do you believe that we are the same person? Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This community may be a joke, but it's not because of anything I wrote in this thread (which somehow came to your attention in spite of your retirement). What I said was "I found six other traits shared by both editors". I never accused you of being a liar, nor did I accuse you of creating a fake account. I stand by my original statement that if the disruption doesn't continue, I see no reason to expend effort to collect diffs and present evidence. My time is valuable. If someone else familiar with your editing history such as Srich32977 or Sitush decides to file and SPI report, I may add my evidence to it. My preferred outcome would be that, with the IP blocked, we won't see this type of trolling and harassment occur again.- MrX 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up, Perry Mason: I have contacts on WP who emailed me about the allegations. How about you present your alleged "evidence" that I am socking as this Norwegian dude? If you make an allegation of socking--one of the most serious charges one can meet on WP--you should back it up. I get the feeling you know you have a flimsy basis for such charges, and that you wouldn't make the allegation if you weren't hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for name calling. Since you obviously refuse to let this go, I will oblige you by opening up an SPI case.- MrX 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the charges against Bink- There is no question that drive-by style of "research" and editing are highly problematic, as is his rude treatment of newcomers. Such conduct has led to a long record of blocks, a record that would be even more extensive and damning if not for the weird friendships Bink has made with "like minded" editors. Still, as a general rule, everyone is entitled to remove what she wants to remove from her talk page. So this action should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]