Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 22 July 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User Fastballjohnd

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

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation, resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here, here, and here. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum , he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

• Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.
• IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version. Again this was reverted.

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here and here.

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here and here. I made one last edit here.

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here and asked for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation. When I did each of these, I left messages on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded on his talk page, I wrote back one day later.

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Berean Hunter here, there have only been a couple of edits and no indication as of yet that he is not complying with WP:SOCK. He is claiming sources, and WP:V clearly says contentious facts must be verifiable not easily verified. Since the edits appear to be in good faith, and COI editing is clearly not prohibited by policy, action here would be premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics

User:Plasmic Physics has been editing {{chembox}}es and {{drugbox}}es for some time, at least some months, replacing and removing valid information, and introducing fact tags to chemical names that could be easily checked via the sources or via various free chemical software. For example, this diff introduced a broken param (ImageFile_Ref), removed part of the IUPAC name (6S,9S,12S,15S,18S,21S) and added a fact tag asking whether this was the preferred name, although he changed the param from "IUPACName" (any IUPAC name) to "PIN" (preferred IUPAC name) himself. He also added a fact tag to the name "Argireline" asking whether this was a non-proprietary name although the chembox documentation says the "OtherNames" param can take any name, and "Argireline" occurs in both sources of the article. He also changed several chemical identifiers (InChI, SMILES); I didn't check in this specific article but at least in some cases his changes introduced wrong information -- see User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it (and also the previous section of his talk page). This is just one edit of dozens, maybe hundreds.

Recent related discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes? and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. The issue has been discussed on WikiProject Chem, and with Plasmic Physics, on and off; but nothing ever seems to change. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been trying to counsel this problem editor for many years. Here is a representative exchange of the recent episode:

user:Beetstra "you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. ... Do you expect other users to do it ] for you?"

user:Plasmic Physics "Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith." Vandalism is one thing, and can often be readily detected and corrected, but technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work. So the effects of Plasmic's work are perverse. And this editor actively defends "this turf," pushing away those that try to edit these tables as illustrated here. In my several years of editing here, I have not witnessed a more damaging editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a history over several years of making hundreds of contentious edits without consensus (particularly WRT chemical nomenclature issues), often doing more harm than good. See, for example, User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_1#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide for an example of exactly the same thing from over four years ago. All attempts to dissuade him / engage him in discussion are fruitless, and he really does more harm than good. Check out his archived talk pages for many many messages from annoyed editors. Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I never misinform, I only over inform, and if that is the case, I'm happy trim the over-informed infobox upon request. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the presumption among WP:CHEMISTRY regulars appears to be that your edits all need second eyes to screen out lots of mistakes (which are often buried among complex article-diffs due to their also including stylistic and other personal-preference changes). You readily admit to making them and make no effort to avoid making the same type of mistake even after you are alerted to the problem (this pattern applies to many content disputes in which you have been involved). These sorts of disputes have been happening fairly regularly over your entire several-years' work in this content area, and often take many iterations of discussion during which you continue to make the same edits (WP:BRD behavior problem, often compounded by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and maybe WP:OWN), which is why this is disruptive (and now landing here on ANI due to our exasperation) and a high cost and not just a mistake here and there that everyone makes.

My latest example (as Smokefoot says, "technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work") is User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it centering on addition of "SMILES" values that contain lower-case letters (which by definition of SMILES represents an aromatic ring). There you yesterday recognized that your value was not correct ("a simple copy error") and then today performed this edit in which your SMILES string has the same type of mistake. In an edit with a summary "Isolating stereomer data." that does not make any changes or additions of stereoisomeric information (which is all difficult to see by eye because of so many field-reordering and capitalization changes that mostly have zero visible effect). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What same mistake re you talking about? I wish you'd be less vague. As I've said, you don't yet understand how SMILES work, so stop critising how I use it. The mistake I admitted to, was missing the C button when I copied the SMILES using the Crt+C shortcut. This resulted in a previously copied SMILES being pasted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I articulated this on Plasmic Physics' talkpage as well, but I am going to reiterate it here. Regarding diff:

• Preferred IUPAC names are not yet supported by the IUPAC, they are still debating it, it is still under development (I am following the discussion there). But, the IUPACName is changed to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compoundname. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material (i.e., with specific stereo-chemistry information) that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the image). Plasmic Physics changes the name, and immediately requests a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research based on rules which are incomplete. In the request for the reference, is asked "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames"
• The caption for the image is changed to include the stereo-chemistry information, which was removed from the preferred naming of the compound.
• As stated, the compound is a specific form of the compound, which is reflected in on of the identifiers for it, the ChemSpiderID. Plasmic Physics there adds a name with stereo information, while that was removed from the IUPAC name, and not included in the preferred IUPAC name. The ChemSpiderID is for the specific compound, but it is now pulled out of line with the names of the compound.
• There is an other-name mentioned "Argireline" - which is also mentioned in the article and at least in two references. Still, not doing the research, a {{citation needed}} is slapped on it: "Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name?"
• 2 other identifiers are added - the pubchem ids. The first one (which is typically used for the compound discussed in the page) corroborates with the new preferred IUPAC name, without stereo information. The other one (which are the additional pubchem ids) corroborates with the stereospecific one. So the main PubChemID corroborates with the Preferred IUPAC name, the main ChemSpiderID corroborates with the image, and the second pubchemID mentioned.
• If I see it correctly (I don't have the software to check), the InChI and SMILES (which are representations of the molecular structure of the compound, and they include the stereo-chemistry information) are both changed - likely to the one that is corroborating with the Preferred IUPAC name, and which does not include the stereo-chemistry information.
• and a lot of other data - which by now is completely unclear whether it is for the compound displayed in the image, or one of the other stereoisomers.

I know that the data in the chemboxes and drugboxes is confusing somewhere, and some people have put a lot of effort in it to get the data together, but this is bringing the confusion back. --Dirk Beetstra 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The IUPAC name was moved to the PIN because it is not the systematic name. Moreover, the stereo segment of the name was removed to generalise the article. Since it is a IUPAC name, but not the systematic name, it could only be the PIN by default. It is common to use an image for a stereoisomer if a racemate image is not available. I have already stopped to add new citation templates, or at least ones that displays.

Stereo data was added to the image name to describe the image.

The chembox fields can be translated into coherent statements. In this case, the OtherNames field can be translated into the statement "Argireline is another name for this compound." I challenged that assertion, and requested a source stating an equivalent statement. The sources in the article is alledged to contain the name, but does not directly say "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier reverted the changes I discussed here, but Plasmic Physics does insist to have the data changed without discussion - he performed another edit moving data around. --Dirk Beetstra 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Regarding diff" Beetstra is discussing here, for bullet-point 2, PP actually moved the stereochemical designations to the image alttext (not caption), removing it from the visible content. Moving these data to be specific to the image alone rather than the chemical entity topic of the article and infobox is in keeping with Beetstra's other comments that PP does not recognize that this entity is intrinsically this single stereoisomer (i.e., did not read the refs and/or doesn't understand really basic biochemistry). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was fixed according to Beetstra's demands, specifying the stereomer, and only the stereomer, which is the usual practise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I encountered Plasmic Physics at Barack Obama where the user added the extraordinary text "While it is not confirmed that Obama is indeed a freemason, he has been witnessed to make public use of several documented freemason 'grips' when meeting certain dignitaries." three times with no sources last March: diff, diff, diff. The subsequent pointless and time wasting discussion can be seen here ("I need proof that the fact which I attempted to add is either gossip or original research, or at least the requirement of for it to be not construed as such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012") and here (permalink). I have re-read those discussions and the only reasonable conclusion is that Plasmic Physics was enjoying a personal joke by provoking volunteers. That situation (aka trolling) should not be permitted to continue, particularly in articles on technical topics where skilled editors are in short supply. The community needs to defend useful editors and save them from days of pointless "discussion". Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the expected outcome here? A block? Topic ban? For Plasmic Physics to apologise? C'mon, people. ANI isn't simply for categorising editors' wrongdoings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor has been repeatedly requested to discuss proposed changes with the WP:CHEM community to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his plans prior to editing sprees, but generally does not do so (and even continues disputed edit-patterns after being advised of the discussions others start). I would like to see uninvolved admins clearly instruct him (with block if not) to work with the WP community and not against it, including discuss-first if controversial, pause-and-discuss/BRD, etc. I would like to see the editor work to undo the mistakes he has made before doing any further additions at all. Given the technical damage, this may well mean simply reverting to "pre-PP-edits" state--the nature of the concerns and amount of cross-checking required of the whole edits (given that there is a trend of problematic edits) strongly weighs against the possible loss of some good bits he may have added as part of these edits. For me and I suspect for several other admins here, we would have blocked long ago for disruption, except we're involved in the content. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which plans, I was not told. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your plans. You must have decided at some point to go through the chemboxes and put a citation needed template next to every uncited name, or to go through and insert your own version of IUPAC names in and all these things you've done in the past. The problem is that you make edits of the same kind to so many articles without seeking consensus from the chemistry community first. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't plan any of those things. You guys said that I can only insert IUPAC names, if I source them, so I did. So I thought that it's only fair that I am also allowed to question names, so I did. Scientific accuracy is important to me. Question, why are the mojority of the identifiers referenced/verified to death, but the names are to be let alone? I don't know what specifically the community wants to discuss? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chris Cunningham: I was hoping someone independent would contemplate suitable action. It would be good if someone who understands the situation with the articles Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) has been editing recently would comment on whether the positives outway the negatives. If not, perhaps an indefinite block should be recommended (that is, the user be blocked until showing an understanding of the problem and how to avoid it in the future). Certainly the situation I outlined with the Obama article is unacceptable, but I don't know if it is that bad in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that incident, I was accused of gossiping and/ or original research. As far as I know, I'm not schizophrenic, I would know my own motive better than anyone else. So, if anyone tells me that my motive not my motive, then would naturally require a source for that bizzare circumstance. Of course, no one can, thus I asked for what is needed so that my edit edit does not appear as gossiping and/or original research - that they would not do either. This resulted in a stale mate, they just kept parroting the same accusation back at me, without giving any advice. I did eventully get an answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with DMacks here. I think that it is time that uninvolved administrators take a look at what is going on and consider options. Most of us are too involved to take action, but I think that a look at WT:CHEM and especially the 2010 and 2011 archives of that talkpage is .. quite telling that something needs to change. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would propose a ban on editing pages that fall under the auspices of WP:CHEM. Failing that, a ban on editing chemboxes, drugboxes, and anything to do with chemical nomenclature, including inserting or changing any chemical names. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I wasn't allowed to add unsoured IUPAC names, now I'm not allowed to challenge names. The names I added wasn't wrong, just not good enough. Why is such a need to monopolise naming? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You ARE allowed to add unsourced IUPAC names. What is your problem? Boghog (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not, that is how the problem started. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Even if your statement is true, a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to cancel or correct a previous action with the template. I'm used the template in good faith, for what it was designed for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the discussions of this editor's actions, many of these discussions are long. They illustrate the great amount of time invested in trying to steer this editor.

• Jan. 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Plasmic Physics
• Jan 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Systematic Name
• June 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#user:Plasmic Physics
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics (continued from above)
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Excessive number of chemical identifiers
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Categories: Arsenic
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics edits
• Dec 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Chembox
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Block for Plasmic Physics
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#OR introduction of systematic names
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked this over, I think either a topic ban or rapidly escalating blocks is appropriate. Plasmic Physics may be well-meaning, but it seems that they have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What type of competence? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone asked for an uninvolved admin who understood the subject at issue. I'm here, and I meet the requirements. I think you know enough chemistry to understand what you're doing--this is not a matter of Competence, but of stubbornness in refusal to follow the consensus. PP, unless you will undertake to immediately change back all chemistry infoboxes and associated material you have worked on to the standard way the project does it, I am going to ban you from the field of chemistry and biochemistry at WP, broadly construed, indefinitely. The only reason I do not do it immediately is to give you a chance to fix the damage first. Additionally, the Obama edits and the almost equally odd defense of them, will lead to a rapid indefinite block altogether if there is further disruption. You cannot add an asserted fact about a living person and challenge its removal on the basis of our having to prove it's false. That it's a contentious and unlikely fact about a famous person in an extremely conspicuous WP article, makes it inexcusable as a violation of basic BLP policy. I await your statement of intentions by this time tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this "standard way" that you are talking about?

I did not challenge the comment's removal on the basis of your having to prove it wrong, I challenged it because of poor reasoning and false accusation. In any case, that is an old, resolved issue. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Standard way" is a bit vague. Once I know what that is in no uncertain terms, I can get under way. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The erasure of names from chemboxes has been ongoing for over a year. See in the 1-propanol article. If he is allowed to fix these edits, someone will need to track what he is doing. He seems to end up with his own interpretations of what he is supposed to accomplish.JSR (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I am not sophisticated in chemistry, and there is a lot to sort out. There's a problem, and it needs a clear remedy.

The primary complaint above is about chemboxes and drugboxes. The editing is not vandalism, but it is disruptive.

There appears to be a significant desire that chemboxes contain accurate information. Changes are scrutinized, so even accurate information triggers significant community effort. Editors adding or changing information must be careful about the accuracy of their edits and mindful of their value. An editor who even occasionally enters bad information creates a significant burden on the community because more watchers will feel obligated to carefully examine the edits. Even with close scrutiny, there is a risk that some inadvertent bad information will remain.

Apparently some of PP's edits are good, but a significant number are problematic. Some good edits may have little value (e.g., a systematic IUPAC name that is not used). The edits are often technical changes to involved notation that require significant effort to verify (e.g., a SMILES string).

Editing problems with PP have been going on for years. There are questions about PP's technical understanding of the box arguments (e.g., IUPAC v PIN) and even of article subject matter (e.g., DMacks and stereo-isomer issue).

PP edits are in good faith. PP has apparently adopted some restrictions (such as sourcing chem names). He engages in discussion. There is also doubt about what level of sourcing is sufficient for chemical names.

An appropriate solution appears to be topic ban on the boxes. I'm open to a wider ban, but the focus of the complaint appears to be edits to chemboxes involving uncommon systematic names.

Proposal. Plasmic Physics is indefinitely topic banned from editing chemboxes and drugboxes. Plasmic Physics is strongly cautioned to avoid article edits that add any chemical name if that chemical name is not actually widely used in the literature. A systematic name does not imply widely used.

Glrx (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Do we have to !vote now, or what? Chris (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Some of PP's chembox edits have generated a lot of work for other editors over a period of years, and the ban addresses the cited problem. The ban is limited; PP may still edit chemical articles. Glrx (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When I sue Misplaced Pages (any time now)...

Banned by the Misplaced Pages community. --Rschen7754 05:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meth is a hell of a drug. Arcandam (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This stuff probably has something to do with that stuff. Arcandam (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The ip was already blocked for it and the block logs notes it is linked to the sockpuppet. Ip addresses aren't usaully indef blocked, see WP:IPB for why. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation has a huge list of socks, but the categories aren't fully populated because someone marked all the accounts "retired" and locked them, and blanked all the IP pages with "OTRS 2012062410000386". Question: assuming this was done because of a request through OTRS, does the fact that this person is still actively socking supercede? Or should the new IP sock not be tagged? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Grace Saunders thing has been going on for years. Honestly, I think at some point this goes beyond the ability of the community to handle this disruption. I don't know whether arbcom or the foundation should be involved, but given the complexity and annoyance this causes everyone in the general population, and given the tools and access to additional information that the bigwigs have, I think that it is time this problem is dealt with by someone with real powers... --Jayron32 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.148.97.79 – Grace is back with another IP address. Wrestling-related revisions? Check. Removal of a sockpuppet tag? Check. That's him alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked I blocked 78.148.96.0/23.--v/r - TP 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Grace_Saunders

I propose a community ban of Grace_Saunders (talk · contribs). While a "de facto" may seem obvious, there has been a fair amount of back and forth over the years, with admins replacing sock and puppeteer templates with "retired" tags, which gives the appearance that this user can just come back under fresh accounts. This needs to be clarified and solidified, the accounts need to be properly tagged and someone probably ought to start a Long-Term Abuse page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Adios. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support great idea. Arcandam (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, if this is the user who has been making the legal threats, the user is not permitted to edit until all threats are withdrawn, as described by the policy. That's probably sufficient. Peter E. James (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd think so, but clueless people keep trying to cover for him and without a viewable history, there's the appearance that he can just come back under new accounts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this user has outlasted the community's patience. The "de facto ban" stuff just means that all they have to do is say "oh, no, I won't sue" and they get unblocked by anybody - which is not something the community wants, hence the formalised WP:CBAN requiring the community's consent for any return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support baby, bath water, bath, bath tiles all out Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it's been a long time coming. GiantSnowman 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Close

Can a non involved admin please close? Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin nor am I involved, but I went ahead and added a {{banned}} template to their userpage. As has been said above, she is already under a de facto community ban; if everyone wishes to make it de jure, then so be it. That said, I think this discussion is perhaps best ended. It's never good to use AN/I as a venue to parade people on donkeys; better to just let them go peacefully. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three users involved in vicious uncivil and disruptive behaviour

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 engaged in repeated uncivil comments, repeated personal attacks, and combative behaviour in complete violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE. These violations of Misplaced Pages policy can be seen throughout the discussion here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism.

Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. in particular were responsible for driving the discussion into a viscious battleground between them where they both engaged in insulting each other. This unconstructive behaviour was disruptive and renewed combative conversation has started between Bryonmorrigan and the anonymous user 66.234.60.131. Bryonmorrigan has been warned many times in the past to stop his repeated instances of battleground behaviour and use of uncivil comments and personal attacks, he has refused to heed those warnings. W.J.M. was equally irresponsible in responding by fighting fire with fire, replying to Bryonmorrigan with uncivil comments and personal attacks. I recommend that strong disciplinary action be taken, preferably equally to each user - to avoid issues of one user being less disciplined than others - preferably an indefinate block for all the users. If different levels of blocks or warnings are deemed necessary by others, I will accept that.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at Bryonmorrigan's talk page where I posted the address for him to arrive here, I noticed another uncivil conversation above on his talk page with a user he was arguing with, in which the user implied to Bryonmorrigan a warning he would get in trouble with his behaviour, to which Bryonmorrigan responded in an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - again revealing Bryonmorrigan's regular grossly uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed. No one has actually posted to the Talk:Nazism thread for over a week, and nothing there appears to be incivil, battleground, etc. R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions. TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since it is your opinion that the reports from R-41 were "numerous" and "baseless" and since I find them neither "numerous" nor "baseless", I suggest your personal battleground with R-41 is showing <g>. Bryopn's styles of saying things like Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying (from the talk page cited) is less than helpful. uses a similar style of ad hom argumentation. The defense that Bryon is not a "frequent editor" (only 50 edits/month) does not affect whether or not his behaviour in posts poses a problems of any sort. This does not presuppose what any discussion here will end up at, only that the OP here should be granted the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, give him a generous trout-slapping for the use of 'viscious' in a section heading in an encyclopaedia . There is no such word - see and . Or it this a neologism relating to evil, immoral or depraved actions carried out while immersed in treacle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if everyone would just agree to stop using such colorful langauge and focus on the sources, prose of the article. dilligaf about your opinion of an edit? do you really need to classify a good faith edit as childish, absurd, or really anything? simply make your case or why you revert, site a source, or a wp:dontdothat. reading all the extra text is hindering the progress of the article for some editors, or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant "vicious", AndytheGrump. I don't know why I often misspell it. By vicious I mean extremely hostile. Please focus on what is being addressed.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A warning may be in order but really I have to agree with Darkstar1st, that the focus needs to be on improving the article (staying on topic) and improving the grammar and citing. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I find TFD's claim and threat grossly insulting, when he/she claims I am making "R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions". My recent address here about User:Yiddi resulted in Yiddi being indefinately blocked by User:WilliamH. Considering that I am in the midst of several discussions in which I am in disagreement with TFD, and that TFD is growing frustrated and angry with me over those disagreements, I don't trust his judgement here. TFD can review the conversation here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism, Bryonmorrigan, W.J.M., and the anon user mentioned above, are being highly uncivil and combative towards each other. Here is what the anon user said to Bryonmorrigan as a jibe , and this is Bryonmorrigan's response , just as uncivil and pointlessly fanning the flames. There is this uncivil exchange between Bryonmorrigan versus W.J.M., both users are condescending to each other. Bryonmorrigan boasts that he is educated and accuses W.J.M. of being uneducated and responds to W.J.M.'s uncivil jibe that Bryonmorrigan is like a creationist, by accusing W.J.M. of being like a creationist, see here . W.J.M. later responds and swears at Bryonmorrigan, see here Plus look at this recent diff from his talk page , Bryonmorrigan responded to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". How is that anything but highly uncivil? Lastly, TFD is incorrect, the discussion is not at Talk:Nazism, but at Talk:Nazi Party, where Bryonmorrigan and an anonymous user have revived their confrontation in the middle of the discussion posts.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan is well known for his repeated uncivil behaviour, he has been warned repeatedly to stop and has refused to heed those warnings. Review the conversation for yourself, here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism. Bryonmorrigan, the anon user mentioned above, and W.J.M. clearly engaged in uncivil combative behaviour and personal attacks, see these diffs for their behaviour: and this by the anon User:66.234.60.131, by Bryonmorrigan, by Bryonmorrigan, and by W.J.M. And here is a recent diff from Bryonmorrigan's talk page , showing Bryonmorrigan responding to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". His behaviour and W.J.M.'s behaviour is grossly uncivil. I want to wait to have an administrator review this before non-administrator users make a decision as to its validity.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Below are 10 of the pointless discussion threads that R-41 brought to WQA and ANI since January. The 8 ANI requests obtained no support for administrative action, or even warnings. R-41 expressed regret at filing one of the WQAs ("I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA" 23:30, 31 May 2012).

• "User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect" ANI 00:35, 14 July 2012
• "Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him" ANI 04:13, 9 June 2012
• "User:Bryonmorrigan being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect" WQA 14:07, 30 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" ANI 01:23, 25 May 2012
• "User:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia" 15:49, 19 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence" ANI 23:51, 14 May 2012
• "Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs" ANI 03:09, 1 March 2012
• "Failure to assume good faith by User:AndyTheGrump, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks" ANI 07:37, 5 February 2012
• "Incivility issues with user Trust is All You Need" WQA 17:31, 20 January 2012
• "Etiquette issue with User:AndyTheGrump and acknowledgement by me, User:R-41, that I unacceptably swore back in frustration at him/her" ANI 01:15, 14 January 2012

TFD (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And you TFD, have been in trouble for initiating false accusations against several users. Such as accusing me of choosing sources to push a POV with zero evidence some time ago on an allegation that three sources I presented - that presented completely different arguments, you had no evidence. You then Wikilawyered based on a technicality, saying that because you said that I was putting in sources to advocate a POV on a talk page, that technically you were innocent of falsely accusing me of POV-pushing because it is about articles not talk pages. I regarded your false accusation and Wikilawyering as contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, and I asked you what was the "POV" that I was pushing. You could not answer that question because the three sources had completely different topics. Several other users said that if you did not have any evidence to show that I selected those sources for POV, that you should apologize to me, you did not listen to those users' request.

You have got into trouble over such false accusations several times, User:Nug who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following:

• You were warned here for making a false accusation
• You nearly faced a proposed 1-3 month ban on political articles on Misplaced Pages, for your false accusation of POV and personal attacks until you apologized for your false accusation, see here:

This: and that you noted, resulted in both users advising me that the issue could better be addressed at another noticeboard that could address the specific issues involved, they did not say that what I mentioned was "pointless", as you claim TFD. This that you noted was a constructive attempt to get Bryonmorrigan to be less uncivil through Wikiquette assistance, until the user WQA volunteer Writegeist arrived and insulted the fellow WQA volunteer User:IRWolfie-, in which IRWolfie- reported Writegeist here and I supported IRWolfie-'s report. You have taken a quote by me out of context, not including what I said immediately after, I mentioned having regret about reporting to the WQA because of the incompetence of the WQA volunteer Writegeist who insulted his fellow WQA volunteer IRWolfie- and spent more time saying cynical remarks than helping with the issue, I felt Writegeist's cynical remarks and his insult to IRWolfie- made the WQA address a waste of time. Writegeist got mad at me for me getting frustrated that he insulted a fellow volunteer that he should have cooperated with, and Writegeist has often talked about me and User:Collect on his talk page to other users after discussions with me and Collect ended, and the other users were not involved. AndytheGrump gets uncivil to users he disagrees with when he gets angry, even Writegeist whom IRWolfie- reported and I supported the report, mentioned to me that AndytheGrump gets highly uncivil at times. And this was never closed or resolved but left open. A number of users whom I have reported in the past for violating Misplaced Pages policy, I have sought to resume normal conversation with, you mention Direktor, I have cooperated with Direktor in the past, and I have cooperated with TIAYN since the report as he/she has not been uncivil since then. TFD, I regard your intentions here towards me as strongly influenced by your frustration and anger at me, stop this, this is a conflict of interest - you are in the midst of a strong dispute with me over material on Talk:Fascism - it is affecting your judgement of me. Just look at what Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. have done, it is completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• On the afternoon of the 20th inst. I was proceeding in a southerly direction on this page towards an alterkay kerfuffle involving my acquaintance Mr. Can in what is now Blue Square when I noticed a Mr. R. Fortiwun loudly complaining about the behaviour of several other people, accusing them of "viscious", "uncivil" and "disruptive" behaviour in a discussion about the Nazi Party. (In fact, as we now know, they were just doing The Fish-Slapping Dance that's traditional at all discussions about political parties.) Recognizing Mr. Fortywun as someone who had recently alarmed me by threatening to urinate on my new limited-edition Nike LondonOlympiPimp trainers if ever he saw me, I hid behind a nearby Misplaced Pages pillar (the Neutral Point Of View one, as I recall), and kept watch. As I recall, a Mr. Deuces then intervened, reminding Mr. Fortiwun that he had made numerous previous complaints about other people and suggesting that this latest one would be best ended. Now a Mr. Collect, apparently an acquaintance of Mr. Fortiwun's, roundly rebuked Mr Deuces, stating that the numerous complaints were not numerous. A passer-by carrying a trout, name of Mr. Grumpy I think (the passer-by not the trout), made a humorous remark and went on his way, after which someone who gave their name as a 1974 John Carpenter film made a plea for more moderate language. They was followed by another passer-by, maybe a teecher, who called for better grammer. Mr. Fortiwun, apparently rather agitamated, then made two statements. In one he spoke of a "claim" and a "threat" by Mr Deuces that he said he found "grossly insulting" because, he said, he (Mr. Fortiwun) had succeeded in having a Mr. Yiddi suspended from work or perhaps it was from the ears, I don't remember. I do not know what he said in the next statement because at this point, growing weary of all his repetitions, and having sat down behind the NPOV pillar, I fell asleep. I awoke to Mr. Deuces enumerating the numerous complaints by Mr. Fortiwun which Mr. Collect had said were not numerous. Falling asleep again, I awoke to hear Mr. Fortiwun complaining about all the people he had already complained about and now also complaining about Mr. Deuces, and also, at considerable length, imagine my complete surprise, complaining about me. Knowing a little about Mr. Fortiwun, , , , and afraid that he might target me for a gas attack, which he had done once before, I ran away as fast as I could. I think it would be best if this was closed now and everyone ran away too went on their way. Writegeist (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41, you are bringing up comments I made about the editor "who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following" over a year ago, which he complained about at Arbcom and resulted in no action. He has been sanctioned for "abuse of dispute resolution processes". But the issue here is that you consistently bring requests to this board that have no reasonable prospect of success. TFD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope your happy TFD, a very reasonable report about three users clearly repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages principles, especially Bryonmorrigan, has turned into a witch hunt against me. I said on your talk page to consider if someone else brought this up - there still would be three users grossly violating Misplaced Pages policies. TFD, I hope you enjoy adding this to your list of what you regard as "pointless" reports, remember that you drove it into this. Now Bryonmorrigan will once again escape for the upteenth time for gross violations of Misplaced Pages policy, along with W.J.M. who swore and repeatedly insulted Bryonmorrigan.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have told Writegeist to leave me alone and stop interjecting in conversations with me, after a confrontation that Writegeist started as a WQA volunteer in insulting a fellow WQA volunteer, User:IRWolfie- and saying nothing other than cynical remarks resulting in that user, not me, reporting Writegeist, I supported IRWolfie-'s report. Writegeist has regularly talked about me and User:Collect behind our backs in condescending ways, I hold Writegeist in complete contempt and despise him, that's why I told him to engage in no further contact with me. But again TFD, I hope your happy you have ruined a reasonable report by turning it into a witch hunt against me, I used to cooperate often with you TFD and held you in high-esteem, but you have become cynical and condescending to me in the past year and a half. I feel like I am not wanted on Misplaced Pages, and as a person who deals with major depression perhaps it would be best if I leave, and I am sure that Writegeist in his vicious hatred of me, desires me to quit Misplaced Pages.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss your state of mind or to make personal attacks that speculate about other users' emotions of desires. Suffice it to say I have absolutely no "vicious hatred" towards anybody whatsoever, and no desire for anyone to "quit Misplaced Pages". This thread should be closed. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be closed even though I have provided all these diffs , , , , , , and Bryonmorrigan using an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - that is what he said. Is this supposed to be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1st point: The wall of text from the involved parties is not helpful. Neither are dozens of dffs. Why dont you discuss your compliants in short and concise sentances with only the most relevant diffs? 2nd point: Some people swear in diffs. That in of itself is not necesarilly a personal attack. "Do I look like I give a fuck" is not even close to an attack here. If it offends you, its best to ignore it or else you will just see more of the same. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What about these 2 diffs: the anon user 66.234.60.131 calling Bryonmorrigan a "liberal/communist" as an insult, followed a few posts later by Bryonmorrigan accusing the anon user of being like a Nazi and the Taliban. --R-41 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

−

More so on the anon, but techincally they were only speculating. What is it that you wish to achieve from ANI? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate to the users that they need to discuss the topics in discussions; not accusing each other of stupidity, and stop stereotyping each other with political labels. Bryonmorrigan has been repeatedly warned to not engage in uncivil behaviour, he has refused to heed those warnings, something needs to be done - at least for him.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than DIILIGAF or the latest diff, is there anything else? Only show the diffs that best make your point. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This diff by W.J.M. condescendingly responding to Bryonmorrigan by saying "No shit Sherlock" and accusing Bryonmorrigan of being delusional, and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with Bryonmorrigan, the accusations that Bryonmorrigan is having "delusions" and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with him are personal attacks, see here: . And the following diff by Bryonmorrigan to W.J.M. in which he is patronizes and belittles W.J.M. by telling him to "grow up" and referring to him as "sport", see here: . "Sport" as a slang reference to someone, is something that adults in English-speaking countries often say as an affectionate term to refer to a male child, see here for its usage: , but Bryonmorrigan used the word "sport" to patronize and belittle W.J.M. as being immature, W.J.M. does not appear to be a child but at least an older person judging by his more complex language use.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All rather small beer. R-41, your best course might be to permit other users at least some of the latitude you permit yourself; a consideration they also grant you, incidentally, by not frogmarching you to the noticeboards for every perceived slight. And anyway, overzealous vigilantism is probably as counterproductive at WP as in RL. Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive behavior by User:Earl King Jr.

User:Earl King Jr. is continuing to attack me and continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I filed an ANI regarding his disruptive behavior only a few hours ago, and I also filed yet another AN/I on his personal attacks several weeks ago (the first AN/I was also due to the fact he deleted one of my comments on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.

His behavior continues to constitute WP:HARASSMENT. He is intentionally targeting me, and his purpose is to make me feel intimidated, to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, and to discourage me from editing.

He has been increasingly emboldened by the fact that almost no action was taken against him on the two previous ANI's. The closing of the ANI a few hours ago was especially hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute uncivil and disruptive behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on both the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement and on the on-going DRN. On the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, Earl openly discussed the material in my user page, which is irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, Earl took the extremely unusual, irrelevant and highly offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page directly onto the TZM article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist", "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "Your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Thus Earl has repeatedly attacked me and accused me of acting in bad fate. And he repeated his attacks five more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. His most-recent attack is particularly nasty, ugly and offensive.

(My edits on The Zeitgeist Movement were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and his repeated attacks are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as the administrator who closed the previous AN/I erroneously said. As can be seen from the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, the specific content dispute between Earl and me was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes between Earl (and several other editors) and me, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits.)

I'm requesting that an administrator take action against Earl to put a stop to his harassing me.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where any action is necessary. I think Earl acted in good faith with this comment and focused on Ijon's contributions and not Ijon as a person. There is no obligation for Misplaced Pages editors to sugar-coat constructive criticism they give. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no constructive criticism. There is an on-going series of comments intended to harass me, pure and simple. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. Are you a member of, or do you advocate for, the Zeitgeist Movement? And if not, why do you state that you do on your user page? You have apparently voluntarily chosen to make this information known, so why do you object to people commenting on it? In the recent ANI discussion, I suggested that a topic ban on you might not be the best course of action, but am beginning to wonder whether I was mistaken. Can you point to anything in Misplaced Pages policy that makes pointing out that someone has a userbox indicating an affiliation with the subject of an article constitutes 'harassment'? As for you being 'frightened', I have to ask how someone who apparently advocates the abolition of capitalism, a fundamental reshaping of the economic system, and a complete shift in the locus of political power expects to bring this about without suffering from at minimum the occasional personal insult? You are familiar with the writings of Marx (or at least, you claim to be), and you are no doubt familiar with past history in regard to previous attempts (no matter how flawed) to bring about such changes. Do you really expect such change to come about without any signs of personal antagonism? Is TZM really that clueless, or is it just you? Either way, I suggest you either accept that political advocacy of necessity requires a thick skin, or find another cause to promote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, did you not notice that the last ANI basically you barely escaped a topic ban or some other administrative action, with another frivolous ANI hours later if WP:BOOMARANG doesn't apply now, I'd be highly surprised. A topic ban might now be in order, to give you a little time to contemplate your behavior and learn how to get along with people of different views. — raekyt 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem getting along with other people. And I'm not the one doing the personal attacks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're just practicing WP:TE and WP:IDONTHEARYOU and other disruptive editing behaviors right? WP:HARRASMENT is very clearly defined, and noone except you thinks he's violating it. Just because someone disagrees with you and starts to get frustrated at your relentless repetitive behavior is not harassment. — raekyt 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to reread this and reconsider your claim of not doing personal attacks? —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment you are referring to has not been posted on an article talk page or a DRN, like Earl's comments. It is an attempt to provide constructive feedback to an administrator whom I feel has made a mistake, and was posted on the administrator's talk page. Yes, AndyTheGrump has posted ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding The Zeitgeist Movement. (His first few comments on the DRN were great, but got progressively worse. And by the way his comment above regarding 'thick skin' is very good, insightful and helpful.) And did Earl ever finalize his "feedback" to me with civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes, like I've done in the comment you are referring to? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be "civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes" such as " You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator"? Are you out of your mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards" IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The "ugly, mean-spirited" string is what I wanted to point out: starting this ANI thread over personal attacks really looks like the pot calling the kettle black. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you characterize comments such as "bollocks", "By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to David Icke to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Misplaced Pages and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)?" "We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit," "you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least". Andy's comments were disruptive to the DRN discussion (e.g. my exchange with Judith, with whom I got along just fine and had a productive exchange with). And again keep in mind I did not post my comment on the TZM article's talk page or the DRN but only to point out to an admin. that he may have missed the 'bigger picture' in making, I believe, a hasty decision. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, Andy, and Raeky for providing feedback and for your insights. All your comments and recommendations will help me become a better WP editor (and more), and especially Andy's first comment above, which is full of truth and wisdom. Truth, knowledge and understanding are not easy to come by, and wisdom is especially rare. Thank you all (especially Andy). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that this has now gone on far too long - IjonTichyIjonTichy clearly either doesn't understand why he is getting to be a pain in the nether regions, or doesn't care. As an involved party, I should probably leave this to someone else, but it seems to me that the result is a foregone conclusion, and therefore propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to The Zeitgeist Movement, to Peter Joseph, to The Venus Project, and to any other matters concerning politics or economics which might, loosely construed, be seen as related to the policies of TZM, until IjonTichyIjonTichy demonstrates through his contributions to Misplaced Pages on unrelated issues that he is competent to contribute constructively to the project as a neutral and constructive editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Since I don't think he's malicious in his intent but just unaware. This should be a temporary topic ban maybe only one month, then he goes on a strict zero revert, and any more of this kind of behavior would make the ban permanent, maybe also forced mentoring. — raekyt 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - yes 'unawareness' (or a reluctance to admit to being aware) may well be the fundamental problem - which is why a time-limited topic-ban would make little sense in my opinion. What is needed is for IjonTichyIjonTichy to demonstrate such awareness in the context of articles with less personal involvement. He clearly is a person of some intelligence, and as I've argued before, is preferable to some of the other TZM advocates/spin merchants that Misplaced Pages has had to deal with - but by all evidence is incapable of changing his behaviour as long as an alternative course is available. A time-limited topic ban will merely postpone the inevitable, as far as I can see. If he is a net liability to the project now (as I'd argue is self-evident), I can see no obvious reason why the mere elapse of time would change this - we need him to change his behaviour, so why not make this need explicit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support One month as well, though I suspect he will be blocked by then. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. An editor who describes this is a personal attack on themselves is unlikely to be able to contribute in a WP:NPOV way to these topics. Kim Dent-Brown 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month per above reasoning. - Jorgath (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I respect the views of the editors above, and I'm only saying the following because most of them may not be as familiar as, say, Andy, Earl and I are with the history of the TZM article. I believe most of the wording in the current version of the TZM article has been contributed by me, including the largest portion of the 'Criticism' section of the TZM article (the first paragraph), and including almost all of the TZM responses to the remaining criticisms. And including the lead, philosophy section, 'See also' links and the remainder of the article ('External links' etc). And please note that even Earl has said "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...." Also, Andy's first comment above provides wisdom on how to deal with future disagreements with other editors, such as Earl (and Andy). And please note that I've worked very effectively on editing the TZM article when collaborating closely with neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin such as Bbb23. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response. You don't get to decide who are "neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin". That you assume (or claim) that you can, while simultaneously advocating for a controversial 'Movement' is yet another illustration of the problem with your behaviour. And yes, it may well be true that much of what is currently in the article is due to your efforts - but much of what isn't in the article is due to the efforts of others to prevent you inserting spin, WP:OR, your own personal opinions, and who knows what else, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, while having to deal with your tendentious Wikilawyering, refusal to actually address the comments of others, and endless, repetitious posting of reams of blather on talk pages, noticeboards etc. When this is combined with repeated calls for sanctions against others (here at ANI), even when it is made perfectly clear that it is your own behaviour that is most likely to be sanctioned, you exhaust the patience of others. Misplaced Pages contributors are volunteers, we only have limited time, and eventually have to say to those who are unable to work in a way that is actually of net benefit to Misplaced Pages (judging not just by article content, but by the amount of effort involved in arriving at such content, and in preventing other unacceptable content being added), that they must either conform to policies and guidelines, or find another outlet for their efforts. I think that you've been treated rather generously so far, but time is running out. Are you prepared to work within Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are you prepared to stop using WP:OR, your own opinions, and off-topic waffle on article talk pages in an attempt to add pro-TZM material to articles? Are you prepared to keep your talk page contributions concise, to the point, and actually addressing the concerns of others, rather than merely paraphrasing your previous comments without any new content? Are you prepared to accept that people who respond to endless repetitive blather are entitled to describe it as 'bollocks', or at least accept that in politics, those who engage in advocacy can expect the occasional negative comment, deserved or not? And are you prepared to accept that repeatedly running to ANI over supposed 'harassment' that nobody else can see is unacceptable, or at least counter productive?. If you aren't prepared to work with us in ways that the rest of us expect, you may well find that you can't work with us at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The answer to all your questions is yes. (And thank you again for taking the time and effort to provide yet more excellent feedback.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of what your saying now in light of a pending ban, I still think a one month break might do you good. Allow you time to read and understand policies, contribute constructively in other areas of[REDACTED] totally unrelated to these topics, and learn. I really don't think anyone here believes you when you say you've suddenly reformed and are going to change your behavior right now. Not after two frivolous ANI's to try to silence your opposition and the DRN to try to push your POV through. — raekyt 18:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• I respect your view but may I explain. When I filed the two recent ANIs I did not have an intention to silence anyone; I (mistakenly) believed an editor was trying to silence me and intimidate me, but I realize now that (as Andy and several other editors explained in detail above) filing these two ANIs was the wrong course of action, and I apologize for wasting everybody's time with these ANIs.

I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers, for the specific reasons I listed on the DRN, and more generally because my philosophy on 'See also' is very inclusive - my philosophy is identical to that of Isaac, who contributed to the DRN. (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have stayed out of this debate, but will comment. Ijon I wish you would stop using a phrase that you use in most of your posts, our readers, example I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers end quote. It may just be a rhetorical device to say that phrase but, we do not shepard Misplaced Pages readers or mollycoddle them toward certain viewpoints. Not so sure that you accept that line of thinking. Its just not neutral point of view for an individual here to lead people in their own personal direction of interest unless there is a direct, notable and verifiable connection. Also in your statement above you say (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.), end quote, that is a disconnect from what happened and the tone and direction of what happened but you are unwilling to let go of your opinion still that you were right. There is no connection to Zeitgeist material and Brown regarding the two viewpoints beyond remote tangents that are not really connected, so it is beyond 'rhetorical largess' to imply that others agreed with you on that in much of any way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. This is exactly the sort of spinning that I find troublesome - the misrepresentation of what other contributors say or do in order to imply some sort of agreement. IjonTichyIjonTichy wrote "please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM". True, I expressed no opinion one way or another on whether the closeness (or otherwise) of Brown's ideas to TZM were sufficient to merit inclusion in 'see also' - because my opinions on whether Brown's ideas match TZM's are irrelevant. We do not base articles on our own opinions. I asked for evidence that external sources had made the connection, on the grounds that this was how we should make the decision.. That even now IjonTichyIjonTichy fails to get the point seems yet further evidence that he is unfit to be editing articles in which he has such an emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, regretfully. Tom Harrison 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment is long because it is a combined response to both Earl and Andy's comments. Apologies for the long comment. Sorry Earl and Andy, it seems my last comment above is unlclear and confusing. I should have made it clear that I accept your explanations on why Brown should not be included, especially after reading Judith's comments, which were important for me, because I opened the DRN to seek fresh views from the larger editorial community, not only those currently involved with editing the TZM article. (The views of involved editors are important, but fresh voices are sometimes needed. Judith's and Isaac's feedback on the DRN were insightful and productive to the discussion, and they helped me learn several new things.) I should have made it clear I have no intention of pursuing the DRN further. (I should have posted this on the DRN to allow an admin to close it, I have not checked the DRN status recently.) I was not trying to spin anything or misrepresent editors' positions e.g. to imply Andy and Earl support parts of my argument. However, I do admit that I have to be much more careful in the future with wording my comments because, among other reasons, often my wording looks, feels, smells and tastes like I'm trying to spin, misrepresent or imply things. Additionally and generally, I have to be more aware of the impact my words have and use a more neutral tone not only in my edits but also in my comments.

Because I promised to keep my comments short, I did not go into details in my response to Raeky, and I tried to limit the scope of my comment to only show to Raeky that I was not acting in bad faith and I was not trying to push a POV. I tried to show to Raeky that I was not trying to imply that e.g. Brown supports TZM or that TZM are anarchists etc. (I'm not saying nor implying that Raeky accuses me of pushing these specific POVs, but I wanted to make clear I did not push a POV, e.g. POVs such as these.) Because I wanted to keep my response to Raeky short I did not discuss the details of Earl's and Andy's positions on the DRN. I assumed Raeky, as well as all editors here, have read the DRN and were fully aware of everything that happened on the DRN and the tone and direction of the DRN and thus I did not repeat (or explain, or summarize) Earl's or Andy's DRN contributions in my response to Raeky. Also, Raeky's comment made me realize I was probably guilty of pushing my general philosophy on 'See also' (without intending to do so, but the effect was probably one of still pushing). (My 'See Also' philosophy applies equally to all articles, not only to TZM articles; this philosophy is basically the same as that of Isaac, based on Isaac's comments on the DRN. Based on the DRN I am having doubts about my philosophy and I intend, in the near future, to post my 'See also' philosophy on one of the WP discussion forums and solicit insights from the larger editorial community on whether I should discard this philosophy. ) And I'm only using the phrase 'our readers' as a rhetorical device and have no intention to shepherd WP readers or mollycoddle them toward any viewpoints. I've seen other editors use this phrase or similar phrases on other talk pages so I naturally assumed it was OK to use it (e.g. Isaac used the term 'readers' on the DRN ), but Earl's comments on this issue are constructive and helpful. I admit that using this term, as well as my other actions and my comments and edits, can seem like I'm trying to direct readers towards a certain POV. (I'll post on a WP discussion forum and solicit further advice on whether it is a good idea to stop using the phrase 'our readers'. )

Again my apologies to Earl and Andy for seeming to spin or misrepresent their views, positions and contributions. I thank them, as well as all editors, for their feedback and consideration. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Ijon has some very specific problems that frustrate other editors and impede progress on improving the article. One, he is way too verbose. Volumes of material with links, diffs, whatever, go on for paragraphs. Second, he compounds that problem by repeating himself, even after his comments have been addressed. Third, if he doesn't succeed at the article or the Talk page, he runs to other forums like WP:DRN and here, forcing everyone to respond repeatedly to what amounts to the same mantra but with perhaps a few immaterial twists. And frequently he resorts to other forums over fairly minor disagreements (the Susan Brown thing is really a big nothing - do we have to expend all this energy on whether to include a See also article?). Finally, he's invariably dignified and civil, which I think, combined with everything else, drives some editors bananas. I don't see any changes in his behavior over time. Whether he's banned or not, I just wish he'd go contribute somewhere else on Misplaced Pages, for his own and the project's good.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Bbb23. (a) All my comments here have been short, with the exception of the last one which responds to multiple editors and addresses multiple issues. And I believe all my comments on the DRN have been short, with the exception of perhaps a single comment. (b) I've contributed several edits on the TZM article from July 17 to date, and I believe none of these edits have been reverted, with the exception of Andy who reverted me twice, I reverted his reversions and no other editors (Earl, Tom, OpenFuture, Andy etc.) have subsequently reverted or significantly modified my edits. (c) Almost all of the other issues discussed in Bbb23's comment have been discussed by Andy in his second-to-last comment, and my answer to all of Andy's questions is still an unqualified 'yes'. (d) I explained in detail why my opening the two recent ANI's was a mistake and apologized for this mistake. (e) No, nobody has to expend all this great energy e.g. on the recent DRN. I opened it because I sought outside counsel and a fresh voice. A short time after I received specific input from Judy I stopped pursuing the DRN. The DRN (and this discussion) have been very productive - for example in the sense that we'll be able to clarify via RFC when and where my, and Isaac's, philosophy on 'See also' may be valid to other WP article - even if it is not valid for the TZM article. (f) Thank you Bbb23 for your kind words regarding dignity and civility. The same applies to you. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to my promises to Andy in my 'yes' answer above, I intend to voluntarily greatly limit my work on the TZM article, because, as Earl said, "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...", and because of personal issues I'm not going to have almost any time for WP editing anyway. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The see-also link is up for discussion in yet another forum. Tom Harrison 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - we now have IjonTichyIjonTichy making proposals which would of necessity require revision of WP:OR policy. Yet further evidence that he just doesn't get it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an RfC and not a proposal. It is an attempt to learn, gain insights and develop an understanding regarding the interpretation of a WP policy. (The RfC does not mention any specific WP articles, and is not an attempt to revive the rotting corpse of the debate regarding L. Susan Brown or to find some sort of back-door way to insert Brown into the 'see also' section or the body of any TZM-related articles.) This AN/I is probably not the right forum to discuss our views on this issue - the RfC itself is the right place, and all editors are welcome to comment there, or, alternatively, to follow WP:DGAF and take the time to enjoy your weekend. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Merbabu

talk and talk have been censoring (in my opinion) just about all of my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966 in the "Foreign involvement and reaction" section as the history shows. All gone. When reasoning is given it is often for more than questionable reasons. They will come up with any excuse no matter how ridiculous or shaky to remove content they dont like. Any information that can be considered embarrassing to the United States government is removed and when they finnally leave my contributions alone they flag it with "undue weight" and "neutrality" tags. I tried to compromise with them after I realized that my reactions to their behavior were out of line. They complained that I was using too many quotes so I paraphrased it but they would not accept anything less than removal of relevant information directly based declassified US government documents. They like to try to find loopholes and exploit the system in order to be able to engage in censorship. In other words, they arbitrarily try to use the rules to intimidate people away from contributing to the page. They look for any opportunity to do so. It is difficult not to question their motives because it's so obvious. They are relentless. Their records speak for themselves. They are clearly on a mission to sanitize pages involving the US government. Furthermore, talk erased ALL my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration and I worked on it for over a month.

Anyways, I am confidant that their censorship is so obvious that I can spare you the details here. Thank you for your time.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Horhey420, I added your report to a new section and made a direct link to the users in questions talk' pages. You also need to notify the two users of your report. Lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they've been notified. Thank you.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Horhey on one thing, the record does speak for itself, but just not quite the Horhey believes. The above complaint is so ludicrous that I choose not to respond further unless another editor has something to say about it. As I said, the record speaks for itself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You can follow the discussion Merbabu, I, and SatuSuro had with Horhey here, here, here and here. I believe you will find that we tried very hard to deal with his personal attacks, disruptive editing, and POV. I would also suggest that you look here for an example of Horhey responding in a paranoid and vituperative manner to innocuous requests, and here for general concerns editors have had with him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend a close reading of the article and the diffs SatuSuro 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Your record is pretty dismal. Id rather be a hot head than a censor. But as you know, my attitude has changed since I read the rules.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, remember your audience has just got a look bigger now that you've posted here. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Another user recognized the censorship before I did. That's how it came to my attention.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you just erased much of your talk page Merbabu (talk). Why would you want to hide the content there?--Horhey420 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TPG. Users are free to remove most stuff from their own talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he only removed it shortly after I brought his record (3 years worth) to his attention today.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is irrelevent. Perhaps they realised their talk page was getting too long forfrom your comments. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it just so happens after 3 years of it being there that he erases it after I tell him about his record today as I file the complaint. Ok..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this removal, then please note that it was 6 days ago, about 5 days before you appeared on that talk page page, and it was approximately 18 months worth of content. If you are referring to your two templates of red links to no-where, then yes, that was today. Also note that you didn't inform me of this discussion, others did. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually they did try even if they made a mistake with the template Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first template went up 40mins before the ANI posting. And perhaps it was 40mins before that that Horhey said I was about to be blocked for censorship. --Merbabu (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'm piling it on now. --Merbabu (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the revert to the failed notification was after albeit coming with unneeded warnings (and without correcting the problems) and evidentally too late although I'd note you hadn't actually replied here yet. Don't get me wrong, I understand how a notification not linking to anywhere is not that useful particularly when it says there is an ongoing discussion but the discussion only comes 40 minutes later, but I think the fact they did try makes it somewhat different from someone who didn't (although both may come from competence issues). Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

...and I have to admit, that a failure to notify would be the least of the problems here. --Merbabu (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No I never said 'it just happens'. I said that if you're commenting on their 3 year record then perhaps they realised it's time to archive or clean up their talk page. Evidentally this wasn't what happened, but the point is still a valid one. Please remember to WP:AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And BTW Horhey420, I take it you read the guideline I linked. If not, do note what I said above. People are entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page. There are a few exceptions but notices of ANI discussions are not one of them. As the guideline says, if it's removed, take it as it being read. Adding stuff back to someone's talk page when they removed it as they are entitled to do is not allowed. People can check the history if there's ever any confusion about whether you informed someone. And once someone is aware of the ANI discussion, there's no point informing them, at most if you failed to inform them when you should have, you may want to apologise. In particular, please don't tell someone not to remove something from their talk page which they are fully entitled to revert. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion actually began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966#Removal_of_referenced_content--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Im not exactly assuming good faith with this complaint since Im accusing them of censorship. There comes a time when the duck test can no longer be put off. There's something that looks like a duck in front of you. It's acting like a duck. It's walking like a duck. It sounds like a duck. It's kinda hard to keep convincing yourself that it probably isnt a duck. It's right there but ya know..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it. That's probably how they've been able to get away with it for so long. They exploit the system which doesnt allow people to point out the obvious. It's like a journalist for the NYT or WP. If someone says the Earth is round and another says it's flat, they'll have to report it as "some say the Earth is round, others differ."--Horhey420 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well looking in to the discussion I can see some of your behaviour there is problematic. The article is the killings in 1965-1966. Stuff happening in during Clinton's presidency are generally irrelevent, unless they directly related to the killings (e.g. an apology, a denial of involvement, destroying documents), and shouldn't be discussed in the talk page intended to discuss improvements to that article. Discussions can get sidetracked at times but if you are the only one getting sidetracked and people are telling you to stop then you do have to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The East Timor stuff was to point out the fact that US support for Suharto continued untill 1999, when the Soviet Union no longer exists. It was a response to the assertion that US involvement in Indonesia was all about combatting the communist conspiracy. The fact that you are not criticizing them for anything at all such as excessive censorship is telling.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Um that sounds like WP:OR. Also I never said I looked in to details of the case, what I did look in to was the link you provided where one of the big problems appeared to be your offtopics rants. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues. --Merbabu (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? It doesnt make any sense. There's no other way to put it. It's not rational.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Brought to my attention by SatuSuro (really not a good day for me to be involved in an ANI thread, been out all day). Based on my perusing of the talk page, it appears that Horhey420 has been promoting an anti-American POV through overquotation, dedicating too much of the article to it, and misrepresenting sources by omitting key details. When this has been brought to their attention, the editor has essentially played IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Right now this seems to be mainly a content dispute, but I do strongly suggest that Horhey pay attention to what Merbabu and TheTimesAreAChanging say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's your solution? Removal of "anti american" US government documents? I only included the key points and you say it's too much. Resisting the duck test now.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what? The only possible solution left is removal. There's barely anything left besides the key points and some newspaper articles so removal is the goal here.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just cant undertand how any objective observer would want that kind of information removed. It stinks..--Horhey420 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read about Wikiquette and TPO. This editing of another editor's comment is certainly not permitted by the latter, and the personal attacks and claims of sockpuppeting violate AGF and the former. You've been told this by several editors already.

Regarding the content, discuss it. I have not seen any poor conduct by Merbabu or TheTimesAreChanging. You, on the other hand... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think Horhey420 is actually accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. Rather they're saying people are censoring info they don't like and ganging up on the new user and trying to hide their wrong doings. The 'duck' thing is just a confusing way of them saying they don't need to AGF in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hope not. I've already dropped a warning about the first issue. I would pretty much never bold something outside of article space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, by not needing to AGF in any way, I meant they were trying to say that for certain users they've decided they don't need to AGF any more (which is obviously still bad). Note that Horhey420 has decided they don't have to AGF with anyone (although they do seem to have major issues with AGF anyway) Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be overly hostile towards me. Something about me editing and I have no idea what you're talking about. And you're underlying solution seems to be removal of my content, thus ommiting US support for the events in Indonesia 1965. Or am I wrong? If Im wrong then we can discuss another solution you may have in mind. This term "anti-American". When Russian citizens would challange their government's policies we called them patriots and heros. Not anti-Russian. The term itself is just ludicrous. Noone ever heard of anti-French or anti-British. This terminolgy is only found in totalitarian states.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (Butting in) To my memory, I have had no interaction with any of the above editors, but these edits today (, ) on Salvadoran Civil War seem to verify a battleground mentality on the part of User:Horhey420. I'm concerned for many of the reasons described above. Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring. I encourage User:Horhey420 to look at their own part in this. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Notice I asked for suggestions to improve it in the talk page? That page does need work. Removing much of that information feels like book burning though.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You agree that you have used " Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring."?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You neglected "battleground mentality." BusterD (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Salvador issue is basically since there arent really any significant government documents released on it like there are with other places like Guatemala, all the critical information is spread out in the public record instead being condensed in documents. Like Chile or Brazil. So I have all this information and just layed it all out for everyone. Most of it is unknown to most people, indeed to most people who even pay attention to these things. Take a look at the page. Who here can be honest and say they already knew all that before? Or would they rather just stick to Washington's version of events- the "official" narrative. But I want get rid most of the long quotes and maybe paraphrase BUT whenever I do that there are people who accuse me of missreprenting it so then I have to lay it all out again in huge quotes and then they shut up. As you can see that happenned there.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• After quickly looking at this, I think that contributions by Horney420, which are mostly about only one subject , are a matter of serious concern. Inflaming passions on this noticeboard is also a matter of serious concern. Something should be done about him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Ive been putting a lot of work into that page. So what? What is your point? I knew Id be a target by much of the right wing for showing some of this stuff but this is outrageous. Maybe something should be done about you.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff provided by ButlerD, your text reads as a typical WP:SOAP. This is very far from neutrality. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it shows what lead up to the war and it's causes. It shows the system that Washington created in the Western Hemisphere which lead to the "inevitable revolution" in El Salvador. Wether you like it or not, that is what happenned. It's not promoting anything but the historical record.. That is the background. Those are the facts.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This really should be uncontroversial. Anyone who looks into Globalization should have some level of understanding of this system.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe something should be done about you. - Mind the Personal attacks, that's a sure course to being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Also your comments above indictate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I'd strongly suggest that you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I repeated exactly what that person said to me and you come at me with this.--Horhey420 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ZERO critisisms have been directed at TheTimesAreAChanging for his removal of the ENTIRE section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration which in particular makes it clear that I am dealing with partisan editors who agree with his behavior. I can no longer assume good faith. Zero critisism. None. This session has been discredited. I will see what other options there are. You're not going to "purge" me out as who knows how many others have.--Horhey420 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Be very very cautious if your "other options" mean off-Wiki ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey has now said that he intends to continue to add to this section. The section's long standing excessive/undue length is the crux of the problem, and something that I've been clear about from the start. Horhey's comments suggest he is either completely oblivious about this concern (unlikely given that I've mentioned it 20 times), or more likely he's giving us the metaphorical finger. His comments like "it's is not going to happen" suggest to me it is the latter. --Merbabu (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've refactored the inclusions (certainly worth a mention) and removed more than 6,000 bytes from the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to get a broader group of eyes. As I've said many times, I have no problem with the inclusions of foreign involvement including the US/west. I'm not trying to "censor" anything. Indeed, as the original creator of the article and contributor of most of the content I was the first to document the broader events in the article, but also mention "US involvement" see this early version. And, it should be noted that apart from a little trimming of 1/2 sentences, I have not removed any large sections of text even when I was arguing for it on the talk page.

I could go on, but ANI is the place for content discussion, and I've said it all on the article talk page. thanks again --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to his edit warring, lack of edit summaries, walls of text, and mass deletions, I list several huge problems with Horhey's edits on Salvadoran civil war here. Horhey's behavior is simply unacceptable. While we have reached a shaky compromise on Foreign policy of Ronald Reagan, he still continues to go off topic and make veiled threats.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Horhey is edit warring on the Reagan article again, adding large amounts of previously removed text without discussion or edit summary. I don't know how to deal with him anymore. I don't think he will stop until he is banned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AND he just personally attacked me again saying "You dont care about the rules. That's just a tool you abuse. You try to make this place like the dungeon under the USSR" and shouting "CENSORSHIP! HARRASSMENT!" He keeps digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem of resolution. The issue of the claims by Horhey against TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu seems to have created another space for Horhey to flaunt a range of basic[REDACTED] policies. When challenged on his talk page - it is almost immediately responded to words equivalent of huh? as if he is unaware of basic[REDACTED] policies - and editors (if they have the inclination) are required to explain simple instructions in relation to policy. To any admin reading all this, I would suggest that TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu are not the problem. The title of this section is mis-titled. SatuSuro 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that Horhey420 be blocked per WP:NOTHERE (and likely WP:IDHT and WP:CIR). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think WP: COMPETENCE is an issue with Horhey420 that should be considered as well. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE = WP:CIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus

These articles have all been redirected via AfDs:

• Thessalmonster (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thessalmonster)
• Kopru ‎(Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kopru)
• Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Jermlaine (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jermlaine)
• Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energon (Dungeons & Dragons))
• Astral dreadnought (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Astral dreadnought)‎
• Athach ‎(Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athach)

Yet User:Joefromrandb apparently decided to unilaterally restore all these articles (examples: , , , , , , ) apparently labelling all attempts to enforce AfD consensus as "disruptive", and not making any attempt at discussing, or contacting the users who took part to the AfDs, that I can think of (article talk pages remain empty). Joefromrandb is now revert-warring to push his POV, and is responding neither to mentions of the AfD results () nor to links to the AfD archived discussions (). I can't see how the user could be reasoned with, since the slightest mention to previous AfDs earns me a "rvt disruption" edit summary from him, and so I ask a temporary block for Joefromrandb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not just asking for a block. He has guaranteed me I will be blocked if I "ever again touch any of the articles he mentioned". It takes two to tango; Folken is at 3 reverts himself on most of these pages. As I too am at 3 reverts on some, I have stopped reverting, and have sought outside assistance. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you have stopped reverting - that saves the need for anyone to ask you to do so. The other user is correct that when an article has been through an AFD process, and the outcome was "delete" or "redirect", it is not permissible to simply recreate the article as if the AFD did not occur. For example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athach. Please respect the AFD consensus, or start a discussion in an appropriate forum if you feel that the situation with respect to a particular article has changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recreate anything. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have restored those that had not been restored, and full-protected all the redirects listed above. Yes, a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead and indulge yourself, by all means. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that there is anything intrinsically improper in recreating pages when the AfDs were four years ago, after all consensus can change. And if someone can force an undeletion discussion just by pointing out there was an AfD in the past this sets an unfortunate precedent. Were there only one page, I would say the appropriate action by Joe should have been BRD re-creation. With this many articles, I think creating a few pages then running some test afds is the way to go. Egg Centric 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Intrinsically, I agree. but "recreating a page" is more than simply restoring a previous version that had been deleted via AFD :-) It's one of the reasons I actually prefer the "delete and redirect" method in many cases. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, doesn't it? But alas, judge-jury-and-executioner BWilkins doesn't seem to think so. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You really know how to make friends. Note that Misplaced Pages is "collaboratively edited", which suggests you take the knife off the table while this conversation is going on. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think that the precedent is important; we should not need to re-discuss AFDs over and over, just because they were not recent. So if there are objections to the recreation then an undeletion discussion is worthwhile. In this case I think there appears to be a general pattern that these articles were originally restored by IP users, and unfortunately it was not noticed at the time that the IP users were going against consensus. However, the point of the AFD is that they can be referred to after they are closed. I do not know whether the D&D wikiproject is very active, but they would be a natural group to discuss how to apply notability standards to these articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So how do I do that? How can I recreate those pages and request AfDs, now that BWilkins has locked the articles permanently and unilaterally decided that the 4-year-old AfD results will stand forever? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As the history is available to you (that's the benefit of the redirect), you can userify the content and work on improving it to address the concerns of the AFD. Once you've done this, you can then approach the closing admin and ask to have your changes reflected back into it. If you can't address the concerns of the AFD, however, that likely means the redirect will stay that way. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins and I have not decided anything about the content of the articles; we are just responding to the immediate situation. His response to edit warring (by two editors) was to lock the articles. They will not be locked forever, just until things are worked out. My suggestion is to pick one article that you think has the strongest chance, and find a suitable place to discuss the recreation of that one article. You might get Folken to agree to let the article be recreated and nominated again for deletion, to see whether it would withstand a new deletion discussion. The point of locking the articles is just to stop the edit warring so that a solution can be worked out. We are not trying to force that solution in any particular direction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is a public forum, so BWilkins is not the only person looking at this. Any admin can undo their decision if they think it is no longer necessary to protect them: there is no need to get personal. Second, you could write up a new article in a sandbox, making sure that it's better than the ones that got deleted, and then ask BWilkins or someone else. Or you could go through the Articles for Creation process (WP:AFC), at the end of which in this case an admin would come along and override the protection if there is a consensus that the new article is worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He may not be the only one looking at it but he's the only one who waved his big admin-phallus around and threatened to block me. Why didn't you chastise him for personalizing things? We both know why. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that several AfDs on similar topics with similar sourcing recently happened (, , ) and gave no indication that results could be any different than 4 years ago. Users thinking about undeletion discussions should first consider whether the old consensus still holds or not, as far as I can see, it still does. In this context, Joe should be proceeding very carefully because any undeletion discussion might be (and with reason) seen as an attempt to game the system, a trump card to disregard a recent consensus he doesn't like. If Joe really has concerns that hasn't already been dealt with in recent AfDs, that he honestly thinks might cause an overturning of the consensus (I personally don't believe so, but...), then he can try to discuss it. But I think it would be better to drop it entirely, in the current context, it'll be a very bad move. But in any case Joe should discuss rather than try to push his POV through edit-warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And citing a 4-year-old discussion as "consensus" to delete isn't gaming the system. Are you listening to yourself? In any case, you can't fight city hall. They could all be recreated as FAs; no admin would ever override the ex cathedra edict that has already been given. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, because said consensus has been reached fairly and under administrative supervision. If you want to override it, you'll have to do something else than edit-warring and recruiting soldiers to continue warring when you've reached 3RR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that our requirements for stand-alone articles have only grown tougher in four years, a four-year old consensus from AFD is likely still going to hold true. You need to show that you have been able to address the concerns of the AFD before they can be recreated in mainspace, though. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

These childish, idiotic accusations make me think that this editor is unlikely to turn anything into an FA. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The user also recently went 4RR at pound for pound although there was no pre-existing AFD against that, he's clearly edit warring on multiple articles. In my opinion he is being generally disruptive.Teapeat (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't previously notify admins about him being over the 3RR limit, it didn't look like he had been tagged before, but it's now clear that this is a general pattern of his behavior, and I support a block to cool him off.Teapeat (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If admins believe it necessary, I'll add more elements. A few hours before starting to mass-revert my redirects, Joe wrote several agressive comments in a related AfD, directed at me and the AfD nominator:, , . I didn't report him at that time or answer to him, because I thought it was a minor incident that wasn't worth the trouble, but seeing how things have escalated now, I'm afraid this might not be over just with article protections. I also noticed that around the same time, he posted similar aggressive comments, not directed at me, in an unrelated AfD :, .Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies but I failed to check that this thread was continuing - I have had other issues on my plate today. I did, indeed, whip out my gigantic "admin phallus" (it's huge) and somewhat successfully temporarily resolve the current situation: the edit-warring. I made the protection indefinite, which of course is not infinite. Knowing that recent AFD's on D&D monsters have continued to lead to redirects, I saw the changes back to articles as problematic, and the edit-warring across a host of titles even moreso. If someone can, indeed, turn them into useful/valid articles that will actually pass an AFD today then they are welcome to fill their boots (or their shoes). Obviously there was no personalization of anything: edit-warring and disruption by anyone will lead to a block, not just the specific users involved this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That other issue was probably socking with your VOA account, here. BTW, File:Erection Development V2.jpg was stuck in that same article by the same editor--can we get that on the list of Not to be Gratuitously Placed Penises? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Joefromrandb - It doesn't matter how old an AfD result is, if an article is recreated in a form that is essentially similar to the way it was when it was deleted, then it's going to get G4'd, end of line. These D&D monsters are not sufficently notable to be included as stand-alone articles, as AfD repeatedly proves, and especially not as FAs - they belong in lists. This is Misplaced Pages, not D&D Wiki (and, given the state of that site, thank heavens for that!). Most of those monsters will have nothing but primary sources, and while primary sources are allowed for noncontroversial facts, they can not be used to establish notability. Taking a look at two of the articles in question: Thessalmonster had five sources - all primary. Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) had 7 sources, six primary and one that only mentions it in passing (blink and you'll miss it). For some critters - Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Drow (which I am a particlar fan of) you can almost certainly make very good articles, but for the vast majority of the Monster Manuals they are textbook examples of WP:NOT and belong only in the Lists of D&D Monsters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to add one thing before I depart from this nonsense. My statement "they could be recreated as FAs" seems to have been greatly misunderstood. I did not mean any of these articles had the potential to be an FA. I meant even if they were recreated and improved to the level of FA material, no one is ever going to override an admin's decision here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the case - if they were improved to FA, GA, or even B-class level, they would no longer be "largely the same content", and, therefore, the previous AfD decisions would no longer apply. The fact is though there are no secondary, reliable sources to ever improve these articles beyond the same state they were in when they were deleted. Sourcebooks and Dragon magazine are primary sources and, thus, ineligible for establishing notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

• Joe keeps referring to Folken and others as "troll" on their talk page. I've given them a level-3 NPA warning, knowing full well that that's on the mild side. I encourage your attention and oversight; this is getting silly. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: please see the rather heated "discussion" (read: shouting match) at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), which in my opinion is related to the above. Both requesting and nominated users have been involved.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Joe and I are chatting on his talk page regarding Drmies concerns. Staying out of the mix here, just trying to reduce the heat a bit there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this. Didn't realize that's why my friend Dennis had come to my talk page. The above comments and warnings by Drmies have nothing to do with this thread; it's revenge for my discussing BWilkins' administrative misconduct elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards