Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:29, 6 August 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion

Hi,

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nominating endless aircraft templates for deletion; here, here and here at least. They have been asked to stop while the matter is discussed, primarily here on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, and specifically warned here about their behaviour. Now the nominations have restarted - see diff. This is creating a mass of work for those involved, while the Project discussion remains ongoing. This editor is clearly not prepared to wait for consensus. Can someone take a look and review their behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).

I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:

1. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
2. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
3. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
4. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
5. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
6. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26

And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).

The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being disingenuous in his invocation of WP:REDNOT although "red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes", "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.", which is the case with these navboxes. He is also being disingenuous when he says that his acceptance of a barnstar for these nominations was followed by a backlash: the backlash is clearly caused by the way he accepts, which very much looks like this is a personal issue for him. Generally, this editor is much too free with accusations that other people are making personal attacks when all that is being done is questioning his reasons for these mass deletion nominations and expressing disagreement.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:POLICY. The Aviation project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes the use of the template series as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than simply navigation templates. There's no violation of WP:CONLIMITED here since the WikiProject Aviation's Consensus (which is a policy) is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, since WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rudeness doesn't bother me (although it might bother others). Your stubbornness on the other hand... I believe that you were originally acting in good faith, however, you seem to be digging your heels in (and digging yourself a deeper hole), despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken. Mojoworker (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The Banner clearly has no intention of listening to consensus. Is there any good reason why he should not be banned from nominating any further templates for deletion under pain of an indefinite block? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you repeatedly illustrate that you cannot accept consensus. You're one of the most stubborn individuals I've ever encountered on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as a minimum . This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Misplaced Pages policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
  • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.

I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing. (See below)

I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?

A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Misplaced Pages, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Misplaced Pages is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Except, contrary to the suggestion of good conduct made by DieSwartzPunkt you have a history of losing your cool and getting banned - see my later comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Misplaced Pages could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support That The Banner is even still allowed to edit wikipedia is because of the incompetence of the admins in dealing with his repeated problematic behaviour. He was allowed to return by HJ Mitchell on condition that he meets certain terms, and as far as I can see he's violated every one of them. Any editor who can't respect consensus should not be permitted to edit wikipedia, and Banner repeatedly illustrates he cannot accept consensus. In fact I'd say that the ban proposal should be extended to nominating articles for deletion as he repeatedly illustrates incompetence in nominations too and nominating notable articles which just need cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It has been said above somewhere that The Banner's edit record has generally been good. Let me refer you to their block log and to this archive of their user talk page, in which the most recent indef blocks are discussed. Nobody can hold that The Banner is innocent in all this aggressive PoV-pushing, deafness to argument and personal antagonism. It has quite evidently been their personal style for a long time. The current proposal may well not go far enough in dealing with such a chronically aggressive editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed troubling. I see that his allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland were conspiring against him three months ago seems very similar to his interaction with WikiProject Aviation now. A disturbing pattern. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt, I am willing to accept that Banner has stepped on a bunch of toes, and that he can be abrasive. I could accept a lot more, maybe. But what I will not accept is someone saying that NOTHERE applies to Banner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his record and his block log speaks for itself. He is consistently disruptive and ignores consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And when I responded on your many bad faith accusations, block fishing and personal attacks, your block log would also grow quickly. Please use arguments in this dispute, do not get personal. The Banner talk 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was me. It was very remiss of me not to check the block log or to see if there was a talk page archive. In the light of these revelations, I have struck parts of my posts above. Also, it is now apparent that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE. I have also changed my !vote to an unqualifie 'support'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Banner cites NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. It looks like (from the RfC linked below) that NENAN is thrown out as a rationale for deletion nominations. Ergo, Banner will no longer cite NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. If he does, he's courting a block.

  No need for anything more drastic: this is not a discussion on his general behavior, but on the narrow one of his deletion nominations for templates--the most drastic measure I'll agree with is a limit on the number of deletion nominations, in general or specifically for these templates. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always said that I will honour the outcome of the RfD. No matter what the outcome is. The Banner talk 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to let that RfC run to conclusion, which it will soon do, but I agree right now the consensus there is that WP:NENAN is of no value at deletion discussions. The only editor who seems to be still defending it there and opposing the WikiProject consensus on the matter is User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? That consensus reached on WikiProject Aircraft that according to the closing administrator of quite a lot of the nominated templates is NOT a convincing argument? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have already been challenged to explain how you come to that non-logical conclusion but have failed to explain it, as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you fail to understand/accept what the closing administrator did. But I am willing to repeat that over and over again for you: Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is wrong about this discussion. The narrow issue over the templates is being discussed at TfD. I specifically brought The Banner's behaviour here to ANI. It has now emerged as part of a wider and longer-term pattern of destructive behaviour and it needs dealing with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute, so you try to get me blocked. The Banner talk 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter at RfC has been firmly decided by yet another consensus against you. What we are discussing here is your record of intentional disruption of Misplaced Pages to make a point. As I have said before your record speaks for itself, you have been blocked multiple times in the past for the same thing. There is no need for you to keep pretending this is a content dispute when it isn't. Your response above shows clearly that you don't "get it" and aren't willing to change your behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, mr. Hunt, stop this harassing and personal attacks. Just accept the facts. Indeed, except for miracles WP:NENAN will be shot down as argument for a deletion nomination. But you fail to accept that the closing administrator also shot down your local consensus as argument for an outright keep. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You can stop trying to deflect the discussion here. It is your behavior that is being discussed here, not mine and your response is to accuse other people of "harassing and personal attacks" without any evidence. I have provided diffs above that support all complaints about your behaviour, as have other editors. Your attempts at deflections here provide only vague accusations and continue to show that you "just don't get it", aren't willing to admit that your editing is a problem and aren't willing to change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Deleting templates while they are under discussion and refusal to accept the consensus of the community mean that this user shouldn't be allowed to continue this behavior. I don't know why we keep putting up with these editors who continue to try our patience. This editor has had the repercussions of their behavior explained to them and now it is time to take away their ability to continue disrupting the project. We all have better things to do than swat flies.--Adam in MO Talk 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, provisionally. I think there are some problems, but we see the same type of problem on AN/I many times. An editor or editors interested in some broad policy/technical area (templates, MOS things, cats, etc.) stirs up a hornets nest when their attempts to stretch content over the procrustean bed of standardization offends some parochial interest (usually a medium sized wikiproject). Bringing the outside editor here and asking us to impose a topic ban should be a last resort. I may revisit this later after looking at the links more, but I'd bet there's a less severe remedy available. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support What is the point of anyone trying to make this a usable encyclopedia in the face of this. Op47 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: RfC

As nobody started anything: Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN.

And yes, I know not everybody is happy with this and I will get some flak and maybe a ban, but it has to be done.

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the current discussion, which is about you. Posting about it here looks like just another of your attempts to deflect attention from your violation of your previous promises, as discussed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is related, and a notice here is appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I just wanted people to be aware that "related" and "relevant" are not the same thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It just got WP:SNOWBALL-ed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The original behavior in question was the mass nominations, which I agree was done poorly due to limitations of automated tools. This behavior, alone, is not enough for a ban. The resulting discussion has been sufficiently heated, that the occasionally snarky responses from TheBanner could easily be argued to be provoked. He has even conceded that he will respect the templates for discussion outcome. The request for comment on WP:NENAN at templates for discussion would seem to be a good faith attempt to reach a wiki-wide consensus, but it too is ensnared in the current controversy. I have been bitten by the TheBanner's snark, and may have bitten back to. I recommend WP:CONCEDE and move on. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me why I brought this here. The wikiproject is big enough to take a bit of template foolery, no way is that an issue I would bring here. The original behaviour in question was the manner in which consensus was ignored, civility was flouted and all the rest. This has turned out to be part of a long-term pattern of abuse. The mass nominations just happened to be the pawn in play at the time. Last time it was a different wikiproject got this treatment. So - please deal with the issue at hand and not with the Banner's skilful smokescreen. FYI I was not involved in the template game save at the end when one of my colleagues in particluar was suffering badly from The Banner's personalising of their constant attacks in the face of consensus. I know it was a long way back up the thread, but please do follow the links I have been providing before you make such uninformed judgements about my motives. Look, if you want to bring the template discussion itself to ANI, will you please start a separate topic and not divert mine? Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you brought the case here; TheBanner is a jerk has been acting as like jerk. That being said, I don't know what is left to be done. The deletion nominations were doomed to fail. Turning it into a brewhaha was unnecessary. A link to the manual of style for the Wikiproject and a request that all the templates be considered together were all that were necessary. Engaging each and every snarking response TheBanner made just provoked more; this is what I am posting about. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you. It was not obvious to the wikiproject that the nominations would be bound to fail. Stranger things have been sanctioned and this project does have an awful lot of templates. But of course, we are drifting away from the root issue here - the disruptive community behaviour surrounding those nominations. Think of my topic title as "Persistently during discussion: ", as I restate below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restatement

This discussion is about The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their behaviour. Check out their block log and talk page archives for more about why this is important. I am the OP, I know why I posted here. Please do not fall for their skilful distractions on the matter of a few templates. I would not waste your time over a few templates. Please stay on course here, thank you. I will come back and clarify recent events/discoveries as I can but at the moment am too busy off-wiki to go round collecting the links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted here because this user was "Persistently during discussion."

The Banner's block log (see link in the above para) reveals a history of sanctions for destructive behaviour. The account has been blocked 8 times since July 1911. Reasons repeatedly given include edit warring, personal attacks and general disruption. In the present dispute, we see all these in spades. Rather that show any repentance, the Banner has detemonedly argued to justify their actions. In the last of those older incidents, The Banner undertook four promises. Here again is the snapshot of the discussion that I already posted. The most relevant discussion is near the bottom, where The Banner unconditionally accepted four conditions:

1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;

2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;

3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;

4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

Conditions 2. and 3. have been very blatantly broken, not only with a self-confessed crusade against another wikiproject but also an equally open personal vendetta against one particular project member, even taking it to their talk page. I too have received passive-aggressive harrassment on my own talk page, here and here.

So, I would now ask that Admin attention be directed at this user's apparent flouting of unconditionally accepted terms of behaviour previously laid on them by an Admin, and their apparent total unrepentance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute (neither do I, to be true) so you try to get me blocked. Cool. But be aware of boomerangs. The Banner talk 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Template:1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship. The Banner talk 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is "only 2 links, red links are to subject titles unlikely to prove sufficiently notable in their own right to require a fork to an individual article user:Fenix down. This would be a sufficient to propose deletion even if WP:NENAN were not mentioned at all. Other posters agree, but it is still subject to consensus. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd call that unrepentant. Talk about digging yourself a deeper hole. LOL, indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just call that asking for a block out of revenge. Not to serve the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Close

Reading through the discussion, consensus seems to be clear enough. Can an admin please shut this down, invoking whatever sactions have attracted consensus? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction

  I would like admin assistance regarding a section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction (the one that starts with "NOTICE:") that I feel violates the Talkpage guidelines in that it addresses me directly and in a non-neutral manner (as well as misstating a comment of mine), and is part of a pattern that constitutes WP:harassment.

  The offending section was added 14 May by User:Elvey, with an additional comment from 64.134.48.248 (a persistent editor using various IP addresses from Wichita). After a month with no discussion I archived it, which was immediately restored from 64.134.150.40 with the edit summary "Useful information that doesn't need to be archived so quickly." After another month of no discussion I removed it again on 17 July, which User:Joe Bodacious reverted with the comment "We don't need to archive every two months, and in this case, it looks self-serving"; another deletion/reversion followed on 18 and 19 July.

  All this stems from various content disputes which these editors took to ANI in a failed attempt to have me topic banned, and constitutes a pattern of repeated behavior intentionally targeting me, having no purpose other than to annoy and harass me, either directly, or by trolling for others to do so.

  The relief I seek is to have an admin remove this section from Talk:Earthquake prediction and its archive, and editors Elvey, Joe Bodacious, and the one from Wichita (various IP addresses) admonished for harassment and uncivil behavior. I do not ask that the page history be suppressed (in order to preserve the record of these editors' pattern of edits), but perhaps the edit summaries could be revised to simply "NOTICE: ...". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Elvey has been notified, and notices placed at User_talk:64.134.48.248 and User_talk:64.134.150.40. User:Joe Bodacious has been notified, but might not be able to respond immediately as he has been blocked as a sock puppet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a good section heading but the criteria for using rev/del don't cover this (nor can we actually change edit summaries, although of course we can hide them). Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:TALKNEW pretty clear? Under "Keep headings neutral" (emphasis in the original) it plainly says: "Don't address other users in a heading". Also, "Never use headings to attack other users", which is deemed not simply "not good", but "especially egregious". (I have detailed all this at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE".)

  Deletion from the active talk pages would ordinarily follow archival. Joe's view seems to be that this attack should be permanently memorialized. Shouldn't this sockpuppet's reversions also be "struck out"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

TLDR: SRSLY? This is about an edit I made months ago! My comment echoes the views of other editors regarding edits by the user that have lead to similar criticisms of JJ by many other editors on many occasions before and since. JJ WP:NOTHERE? --{{U|Elvey}} 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome constructive feedback, particularly in the form of an edit to the edit I made that this ANI section dredges up and characterizes as harassment and trolling; the guideline WP:TALKNEW says "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." The heading is currently, "NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson's commitment to not revert" to make it demands much admin action that seems all about a tempest in an old teapot. While JJ claimed that "no admin was interested in a topic ban", and that may or may not be true (neither of us has ESP...), what is true is that User:BrownHairedGirl is an admin, and did say at that archived ANI discussion, "... I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone." --{{U|Elvey}} 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• J. Johnson (JJ) was lucky to escape a topic ban in respect of earthquakes. The discussion in April included a proposal to topic-ban JJ which was supported by 4 editors and opposed by only one. If there had been a little more participation, the topic ban would probably have been imposed.
  As Elvey noted in the posting to the talk page, one factor in the lack of a topic ban was J. Johnson's assertion that it was Not necessary. I disavow any ownership, am resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly have no desire to do any reversions."
  It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that this commitment should be noted on the talk page of the article in question. Note that in March 2013, there had been a discussion at WP:AN about J. Johnson's conduct, at which no action was taken, so this was clearly a long-running dispute.
  JJ's bringing of a complaint to ANI about JJ's attempts to remove the record of that commitment cast doubt on the good faith of the commitment made in April. A revision history search shows that J. Johnson continues to edit the article, and continues to edit the talk page.
  That does not appear to me to be the conduct of an editor who is "resigned to whatever happens to the article". I urge J. Johnson to read WP:BOOMERANG, because it seems to me that the main effect of JJ's complaint here is to draw attention to JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The fact that J. Johnson probably would have received a topic ban was brought up on my page last night by User:Robert McClenon - his ownership problems put other editors off. Including me. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if all of the foregoing is granted, does that set at naught the plain statement of WP:TALKNEW to "keep headings neutral", and specifically to not address other users in a heading? It is not at all (as BHG alleges) an attempt to "remove a record" (the record is still there); I am asking if the supposed rules give Elvey an exemption to hound me from a section heading. Alternately, why not also "NOTICE" that Elvey has been blocked for disruptive editing and "general and persistent combative attitude", and was warned just this month to not harass other editors? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That wording in the talkpage guideline, about not referring to other users' names in headings, is pretty nonsensical and has never reflected actual practice. It used to say a different thing, up to c.2011 or so, which was actually about not addressing other editors, in the sense of talking to them rather than about them (i.e. discouraging headings of the type "Hey, XYZ, why did you revert me?"). Then some people misunderstood "address somebody" as if it meant "refer to somebody", and people started silently fiddling with the wording until it said something totally different.

What it all boils down to is: headers in talk pages may be about whatever is a legitimate topic of discussion on that page. It is true that normally discussions on article pages should be as little personalized as possible, but if in a given situation an individual's behaviour has been a particular matter of concern, and discussion on the article has had to focus substantially on how to deal with the disruption caused by that individual, then it is only natural that section headings may end up reflecting that, just as they tend to reflect whatever else gets discussed on such pages. If such has been the case here and you've been causing long-term problems on that page, then you'll probably have to live with the idea that other editors will refer to you while trying to clean up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that explication. I think the essence is that WP:TALKNEW is not as starkly simple as it could be taken, and the plain (naive?) reading of "Don't address other users in a heading", etc., is effectively inoperative, and not an "egregious" offense. Which is fine, I can accept that, as long as we're all playing by the same rules, and on that basis I will withdraw my request. I am greatly disappointed that when I try to have a serious discussion about content certain editors go into attack mode and make this all about me, but I think rebuttal of that is off-topic for this thread. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's two administrative admonitions, above. The ownership problems have already come up at ANI on multiple occasions, and on the talk page on umpteen occasions, with JJ and umpteen frustrated other editors. We have no admin action, beyond administrative admonitions. We have "JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment". Could the self-imposed commitments be made admin-imposed restrictions? JJ now says that he still (!) thinks the problem is "editors go into attack mode and make this all about me"; it is not. Enough. A lot of good, thoughtful advice has been given to JJ by a lot of editors. Now what? Just revert to the 2011 language? --{{U|Elvey}} 20:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The serious discussion I was trying to have here was whether TALKNEW was applicable to your hounding me from a section heading. Fut.Perf. has offered an explication about TALKNEW which could be taken as a basis for resolution. But this is not good enough (harsh enough?) for you, you just have to keep trying to make this discussion yet another WP:BATTLEGROUND. As I was said: I try to have a serious discussion, and you go into attack mode. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an "attack mode" other than your repeated claim of such. I've done some digging, on and off, and tend to agree that there seems to have been an ownership issue, as mentioned by others. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Various epithets

Does this fall under the category of "demeaning fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression" and as a result considered to be "offensive and damaging to the editing environment". User:H-E-Double Toothpicks in a Bucket has declined to remove it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Get a sense of humour. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not constructive and it's not sensetive to the gender gap. There are better ways for Hell in a Bucket to explain his viewpoint.--v/r - TP 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely it was an ill advised comment. We could argue over whether it violates NPA, or justifies some type of sanction on civility grounds. But Sitush is right about the question asked. The comment does not violate that particular principle in that case. There is no indication that the comment was made based on any of the protected characteristics. Monty₈₄₅ 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. I see as many "gutter" words about men as women in that message. Take you social consciences elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that an edit made by an actual contributor to this project? Dear me. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes for almost 4.5 years, the ironic part is the part about AN and ANI and here we are. I'd also like to show ] and ]. I'm glad someone actually caught on I was liberal about the targets because no one is totally blamesless here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Wikipediot" OK? Or is that the One Banned Word? --NE2 00:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when an editor talks like a low-life, it does no harm to you, it only reveals the character of the one saying it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking userpage desecration! And Baseball bugs if a person is that superficial and surface oriented it's better to not have that person around, you will never get to below the surface because all they can see is the surface. what a sad place to be stuck on the surface always knowing more is there but never able to get there...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot wiped out your entry in an edit conflict. Just as well, since your comment really doesn't make sense. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

iF YOU CAN'T SEE BELOW THE SURFACE THEN YES IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER BUT IF YOU LOOK BEYOND JUST THE SURFACE YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH IS THERE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that ugliness is only skin-deep? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If I base my answer on your sweeping generalization above sure does. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Foul mouth = foul mind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to comment about being unable to see past the surface, reread then let sink in and then reread again just so it sticks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to foul mouth = foul mind and then reread again just so it sticks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Big feet = big meat. Wait, what was that about womenfolk? --NE2 02:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since there has been some question about what was actually said, I will post it here in its entirety:

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. (Emphasis mine. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

And BTW, he is also mocking this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Have a nice day. —Neotarf (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be worse. There are several entries on George Carlin's word list that the editor forgot to include in that funny rant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf. You are quoting improperly by adding emphasis (bolding) where it does not exist in the original. This is a form of exaggeration. If you quote and add emphasis, make sure you note "(emphasis added)." Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tim. Quite correct, and I have made the necessary adjustments, although it looks like a missed a few; that's what happens when you have 6 tabs open. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf highlighted what he sees as the real message. He is quite right to highlight it. It is not its poster's place to lecture others on how they "should" read it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that I was mocking you replying to your thinly veiled attempt at an insult. I like how you are pretending to be a victim and trying to twist it though, keep trying something might stick. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you can dish out insults, but can't take them? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No but when they are petty i reserve the right to mock you, care to give it a try Bugs? I'm not complaining at all, notice I didn't start the thread, I haven't misrepresented what happened, I think this is a whole big WP:COATRACK thread. If yuo want to see the whole picture look, if you can't well that's up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, your vulgarity-laden rant, highlighted above, definitely qualifies as "petty". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your vastly enlightening surface analysis, I'm sure we are all enriched having been privileged with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, George. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha I knew you weren't acting in bad faith you just seem to have confused me with someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

COATRACK is about article content. This discussion is about TPOC, WIAPA, and RPA. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The words are being referenced, not used. So no. Though said in an aggressive tone, his usage of these epithets is akin to every usage on the article Nigger. He could learn to calm down though, and speak in a manner that doesn't come across as uncivil, but him littering his comment with profanities is just hurting his own characterization. There are better places to use profanities, other than a debate about an obviously sensitive topic. I (fruitlessly I bet) advise (to HiaB) removing it out of common decency. moluɐɯ 04:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 14:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fruitlessly, indeed. —Neotarf (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

... and I've reverted the refactor again.. I would ask that you abide by the policies on refactoring other's comments, just because you couldn't manipulate it to suit your needs within the arbcom case doesn't mean you can just remove it. Thank you and by all means have a great day. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no place in this project, Jimbo's page or otherwise, that is suitable for your puerile nonsense. Grow up, please, and learn to present your point without being WP:POINTY. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That comments attacks no one or any groups. It reflects the futility on focusing on a word rather then the message behind. An, ANI and Jimbo's page isn't solving the problem or improving the encyclopedia. The whole point behind that is take the drive you have and move it elsewhere to something productive. Even the emphasis added comment above cherry picks what is said to present that persons view. There's lots of comments I don't like on wikipedia but I don't remove them just because they are coached in language I disagree with. At some point a person has to be able to look past whats on the surface, that's the whole point of the above. If you judge a book just on the cover you may miss the message or opportunity inside. I'm sorry if you can't or won't accept that but honestly that is your limitations not mine and I've not broken any policies, attacked anyone or otherwise opined other then that there could be a different avenue of using your energy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If the cover of that book reads like the way a low-life talks, why should anyone bother opening it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are missing out on some good books. Chillum 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Name a few. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a page turner. Chillum 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny, attention-getting cover, and unlikely to tell me anything I don't already know. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is still open, right? What HiaB's remark was - was a personal attack. And WP:RPA says: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." It was an obvious personal attack. And if it wasn't directed against Neotarf (I think it was), the policy doesn't say "ONLY where such text is directed against you." Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that so many actual personal attacks are ignored but this is an issue(non-issue)? There are some naughty language and the only insults are to a hypothetical person. We do encounter moron's on Misplaced Pages, we can say that. We just can't call them a moron once we finally meet them.

Personal attacks have both an attack and a person. As far as I can tell nobody specific is being attacked, rather it is a call for sanity. It is not how I would have expressed myself but it is not an issue for administrative action. Chillum 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed myself more above. I mocked Neotarf after some passive aggressive behaviors but that comment was not to anyone but an opinion on the situation and overall futility of those avenues for issues such as this and many others raised there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to read about "Fighting words". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article especially that bit about the Jehovah's Witness bit but the relevance to this still doesn't quite ring right. Are you insinuating that the mere mention of those words is enough to be fighting words even when not directed at anyone? How would this apply to our policies we have set here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone talks like a low-life, they should have no expectation of respect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is a woman with a low cut shirt or a mini skirt should have no expectations to not be raped? Yes I am aware that's hyperbole but so is the above comment and that's why I am highlighting the ridiculousness of the comment with another. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

HIAB, any position sounds ridiculous when taken to ridiculous extremes. This is a straw man argument and a tacky one at that. Your are better than engaging in the logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum. Chillum 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually... (PS: fuck the popo, and the admins too) --NE2 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks have an attack and a person (target) or persons, per WIAPA bullet 1: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." (emphasis mine) And how does that section end? "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." HiaB's rant had a target: every WP contributor who is complaining about civility. Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

They ignore the comments about the moron with a dangler who thinks he's superior and a couple others because it doesn't suit their preferred course of action. It's gradually changed over the course of the original complaint til now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way the edit warring on Jimbo's page needs to stop now. That is a great way to get blocked. Jimbo can remove it if he wants. Chillum 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask them to stop removing a legitimate comment. I don't know what else to do it's not actionable but if I have three people grouped on me like that not sure how to proceed because I do not plan on removing it. Honestly at this point I am in a pretty combative mood over it too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that what this "trolling" is about ? And most above also disagree that it is legitimate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what they called trolling, templates are easier and I have twinkle so it is easy to let it do the talking and throw a link in there. I am aware there is a strong opinion on templating the regulars or not. I think they are made for a reason and doesn't bother me too much. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Templating the regulars (in this case, one who's been here for 6 years) is a highly patronizing, contemptuous thing to do. But that kind of thing is consistent with what you insist is only "surface" behavior: vulgarisms, patronization, contempt. When will you start revealing that inner beauty that you claim to possess? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you open your eyes Bugs, I guess it is up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No matter what point you might try to make, when you lace it with obscenities, the obscenities become the message. Until you open your own eyes and see that, you'll be stuck where you are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't see the message because of naughty words then you are exhibiting selective blindness. While the whole point could have been made without "bad words" the presence of them does not make the point unclear. If the obscenities become the message for you then that is something happening on your end. Chillum 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. It is not your place to lecture others on how they "should" read a message. The message is however it's perceived. Obscenities are used for shock value and aggression, and they obscure whatever the alleged "real" message is. When someone talks like a low-life, they have no reasonable expectation of being regarded and treated as anything else. If you remove the "naughty words", as you childishly call it, there's almost nothing there. So, the obscenities are, in fact, the real message. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok Bugs I can only show you the water it's your choice whether you drink or not. Cheers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your core complaint seems to be that it's up to your target to read your message the way you supposedly intend it, rather than the way it comes across. That mindset falls into the "patronizing, contempt" category, just as templating a regular does. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only Carrite's talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And you've been here over 2 1/2 years. However the user tries to justify his behavior, there's a goodly amount of consistency to it: Vulgar, patronizing, contemptuous. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4.5 yrs actually and I actually agree with this essay User:DESiegel/Template the regulars but hey when either gets to policy status then I'll worry about which one to do until then I'll guide my templating by that essay. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? It's clear nothing good will come of discussing it further and at this point Bugs is just adding needless heat to the discussion. 91.232.124.147 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When LC starts sticking his ugly mug into it, it probably is a good idea to close it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I might have some sympathy for "use-mention" distinction, there is no doubt this posting was going to offend a significant number of people. The same point could easily have been made without doing that. Therefore the post is gratuitously offensive and the poster should reflect that this is not acceptable. I have no idea if this is a pattern of behaviour, if not lets all move along. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Brought to ArbCom

LT910001 has opened up an ArbCom case based on all of the drama started by Eric Corbett's use of the word that shall not be used again and has included everyone who's commented here and Jimbo's talk page, particularly those who have reacted negatively in some fashion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Ryulong. To be clear, this relates to HIAB and the comment made at the beginning of this thread, and this case at AN/I, which has not received administrator attention, in part because the burden of proof for what constitutes incivility is unclear. I make no mention of Eric Corbett in my request for arbitration. I haven't posted an ArbCom request before, but I think I need to show members of the community on each side to prove that it is a dispute. I am sorry to have caused you distress by stating you are an involved party. I hope a clerk will clarify this situate. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is the reason that this week of drama mongering on both sides has taken place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In fairness he hasn't mentioned everyone who has commented. I don't think this is productive, though, and I will make my thoughts clear there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

But I commented all but once in this thread (prior to this arbcom mention) and 3 times in the thread where this shitfest started. I'm far from involved and I do not want to be part of something where I'm just expressing amazement that people are still mad over one person's actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That was the whole point. He said the word CUNT, people were going batshit crazy. Words only have the power you give them. You can fuck or you can make love, does the word fuck make that action any more or less dirty? The answer is no. You can say feces or shit, does it make it smell any better? Yes I'm aware I'm not perfect and yes I'm sure a more level headed person could have phrased it differently but I'm not now nor ever will I be an administrator so I will have to deal with being a "low life" with no expectation of respect and be true to who I am and let the people here who want to live in fantasy castles in the cloud where everything is perfect fix the world on wikipedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it ironic that, by the standards of those pursuing some sort of action against HiaB anyway, Bugs has repeatedly called HiaB a low life yet none of those same people have called for action against Bugs for the "incivility" of his remarks in this thread. Capeo (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, where the first editor to cite a policy is plausibly deemed to be true unless evidence proven otherwise. OhanaUnited 04:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism RfC

A recent RfC on whether to include a specific, well sourced, sentence in the lead about the relationship with Anarchism proper was closed with the conclusion that it should be there. Prior to this, there had been persistent edit-warring over the content, with two bouts of page protection. Since the RfC was closed and the material included, three different editors – the three who opposed its inclusion in the RfC but failed to carry the discussion – have continued to repeatedly take it out. User:Netoholic has now done that three times in the past two days: here, here and here. User:Knight of BAAWA has done it twice – here and here – and User:JLMadrigal once, here.
I'm bringing this to ANI rather than say the EW board, first, because none are technically in breach of 3RR (and of course their deletions have themselves been reverted by others) and, secondly, because this is about abuse of the RfC process as much as it is about edit-warring. Editors can't simply ignore the result of an RfC because they disagree with it or because they think the agreed text happens to be "redundant" or that they suddenly have a better idea for the text. If they really want to contest the conclusion, there are review options. Knight of BAAWA was blocked previously for actions on the page. Netoholic was involved in similar behaviour recently on a related page – ignoring or trying to work around an RfC result. I tried to head off having to come here on the talk page but there has been no substantive engagement or response there, while the edit-warring and deletions continue. N-HH talk/edits 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is appropriate as N-HH is rightly pointing to three editors. However, the discussion could also have been taken to the edit-warring noticeboard because of the obstruction of these three editors to implementation of this RfC close which determined that there was a consensus of "weak yes" to include the sentence. The three named editors are pushing back because the RfC result was "weak", even though it was also "yes". These three editors appear to be adherents of anarcho-capitalism, which makes them very interested in having the topic be presented in a positive rather than neutral light. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected for three weeks. Somebody else can judge the consensus. If someone wants to unprotect then feel free. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we protect it in the version that accords with the RfC? I know WRONGVERSION and all that, but we had the RfC and consensus has been determined – we've basically rewarded edit-warriors who felt free to ignore an RfC conclusion that they disagreed with. N-HH talk/edits 17:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I'm endorsing CambridgeBayWeather's protection. And no, N-HH, we cannot protect the right version. The OP misstates the dispute. The RFC was on including a sentence to distinguish the subject from anarchists - that has been accomplished. This is over adding a second sentence expanding on that matter which the RFC didn't come to a consensus on. Protection, and not blocking, is appropriate here.--v/r - TP 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but my original post states the position correctly, with links. The RfC was precisely about the exact text in question. This is very clearly not about any "second" sentence. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #7.--v/r - TP 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point? N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

TP states the situation very well. The 3 editors the OP calls out here have each offered variations of the wording of the point, and worked to incorporate it in a meaningful and more widely acceptable way. The OP and others insist on a particular exact phrase. Frankly, if something isn't working out, you are supposed to come up with a new solution, not just drag the same dead horse through the muck each and every time. Generally speaking, those that try to compromise and try new solutions are coming from a stronger position than those that just rehash the same points. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you have tried to insert different wording about a different point, nor has that proposal been through the same level of discussion as the wording discussed in the RfC or garnered the same level of support. Anyway, there are more fuckwits on WP than I thought and nothing anyone can do about it. I've wasted probably two hours overall on this issue on the page itself and now on various boards only to end up with the page protected in its flawed form again. TP accuses me of misrepresenting the situation and then gets all sarky and pithy when I try to point out that actually he's the one who hasn't quite got it. Fuck that. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #16.--v/r - TP 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection, but is there more that can be done? The page has been protected a couple of times and, once removed, the edit war resumes. I believe there is a deeper, POV issue at hand that needs resolution, but the NPOV noticeboard has a backlog. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since OP has left the building, and the page has been protected and endorsed, I think we're now better off just continuing this on the article talk page. I've opened a new section there which hopefully can get to the root of this continuing problem. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, after this firm admin action, this is how it has continued on the talk page, on top of the usual wikilawyering and "I, an anonymous internet user, know better than what academic and other real-world sources say". We can only wait until this third bout of page protection is lifted and then we shall also no doubt see real improvements to the page itself along these lines. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental problem

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't belong under parent Anarchism. It's a species of Libertarianism. — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct... and yet not. The terms anarchism and libertarianism both referred to the same political philosophy for several decades before the Old Right in the USA, influenced by the individualism of American anarchists, began identifying as libertarians. Brian Doherty, in Radicals for Capitalism, calls this movement "modern American libertarianism," but others refer to it as right-libertarianism or propertarianism to distinguish it from the historically left-wing and anti-private property ideology of anarchism. Amongst right-libertarians, there is a debate about whether or not the state is necessary to protect individual rights and private property—minarchists believe it is, anarcho-capitalists don't. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from RFC Closer

I closed the RFC as No Consensus on statement A and a Weak Support of statement B. It is my understanding that an RFC establishes consensus (if weak consensus) and that ignoring the RFC is editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing. If any editor thinks that my closure was incorrect, they can request closure review, and I agree that my closure was a judgment call that can be reviewed. However (although I may be considered WP:INVOLVED after the fact by having closed the RFC), I think that ignoring the closure, rather than requesting closure review or opening a new RFC, is disruptive and tendentious editing. That is my opinion. If my closure was wrong, criticize it, or move on with a new RFC, rather than ignoring it. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff (which shows the changes from the start of the RfC to today) demonstrates that the lead indeed now does have a brief summary which satisfies Statement B of the RfC (but without the accompanying problems. What is happening post-RfC is that the RfC opener still wants his exact line "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism..." in the lead, and doesn't accept the new section which incorporates the basic idea "Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from... anti-capitalist anarchists...". The RfC and Statement B in particular was not about any specific wording, and the "weak support" result you noted is a strong hint that the OPs exact wording is not the route to go to solve the issue. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A formulation which says "anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from anarchists" does not reflect, and cannot be a replacement or alternative for, the RfC-approved observation that "anarcho-capitalists are often not considered to be anarchists ". This has been pointed out on the talk page, and there is no consensus whatsoever that such phrasing tallies with the RfC conclusion. Anyone who understands English can see that, even if such people are in short supply on Misplaced Pages. Your spanning diff is also misleading as it omits to make clear that the statement about minarchism and other distinctions etc is included in the post-RfC version. And regardless of what you and TP seem to have taken away from all this, as pointed out, the RfC was very much about a specific form of wording, and how to reflect that; again, as anyone who can read and understand English can see. Maybe there's another way of doing that in terms of exact wording, but this is not it. And as noted, if you think the viewpoint I have argued for is wrong, or that the RfC closure was wrong, there are other avenues for addressing that. Edit-warring against the conclusion is out of order and it is ridiculous that subsequent admin action has in effect given such actions a seal of approval. I don't mind time-consuming bureaucratic process as long as it gets somewhere sensible in the end. When you have it and you still end up with nonsense – and this is not the first occasion for that – there is no point. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and Livelikemusic

I refer to Editors are unable to interact with each other without accusations of harassment, bad faith, edit warring, snide remarks and incivility etc etc. The last proposal for an interaction or topic ban did not gain any traction due to, I suspect, people being unwilling to read through the impressive walls of text when the two parties argue (I don't blame them, wading through it is about as fun as watching paint dry). There is no relevant dispute resolution process to follow as the two parties literally argue about everything to do with soap opera. —Dark 15:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember this story. Neither seemed willing to work on the content disputes that led to their disagreements. I was never really sure who was "at fault"... but yeah, if it's still going on something has to happen to cut this nonsense. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to get along with that one but, he just follows me around on here. To the point where even you, Dark Falls, commented on it and told him to stop.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord, I followed your link Mendaliv, and my head hurts. What do we do when the crap generated by 2 users is too much for normal mortals to bear, or even read without their eyes bleeding? Begoon  17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there's no desire from either party to solve the content issues using the normal protocols, then the only option I see left for these two is WP:IBAN. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• While I support an IBAN (preferring a limited length one, such as 3-6 months, but supporting any proposal), I'm concerned that the narrow editing area these two operate in will make a clash inevitable. I'm also always concerned with the possibility of an IBAN turning into a land rush (especially when both editors are in a small topic area like this), but I'm sure those more familiar with IBAN mechanics will inform me that there is no such worry in practice. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point, Mendaliv, and it crossed my mind too, when posting my IBAN link. I guess the way to look at it is this: If the children won't play nice in the park, first we ask them not to play with each other at all because it upsets everyone else. If they still spoil the park for others then we ask them not to come to the park at all. In the meantime, if they can show us they've grown up now and won't spoil everybody's day, well, then everyone can play together happily again. Begoon  19:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone is prepared to fine-tooth-comb the contribs, an IBAN seems the standard way forward. A gentler approach might be a revert-ban, and a ban on commenting on the other editor while still allowing factual comments on talk pages. Dark will have a better idea whether this is worth trying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

That is exactly what DarkFalls told Livelikemusic to do! Stop following my edits and, if he really feels that strongly about it, take it to that article's talk page! You can see so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DarkFalls#Assumptions_being_made_AGAIN Cebr1979 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

However, Livelikemusic paid that no mind, continued on as though that never happened, and has been reverting my edits ever since without ever once going to an article's talk page! I mean, while I agree that perhaps some of my responses to him are not always the most professional... I don't follow his edits, I don't revert his edits (unless it's undoing a revert he unfairly did to me), and, as DarkFalls also pointed out, I've come a long way in a short time and have stayed clear of Livelikemusic!!! If any of you were to wake up to reverts by only one user every single morning... you wouldn't eventually CAPS LOCK something back? He constantly accuses me of Wikihounding him yet... I never revert anything he does! I go to a page, make an edit, and he reverts it! He follows me around and the proof is right here on this site for all of you to see! The Summer Newman comments made by him in that conversation on DarkFalls page I linked to prove it: that page isn't even on his WatchList but he knew of my edit and had even directed other editors to go look at it!!! He told DarkFalls (again in that conversation I linked to) that he reverted an edit of mine "not even looking nor caring who made said-edit" but, he's had a conversation about THAT very edit going for WEEKS now (and had even commented on that conversation that very same day where he, himself, pointed out that no consensus had been reached but, he went and reverted the edit anyhow)! Would you people not be going bonkers if this was happening to you??? Now, I'm the one who has "come a long way" and Livelikemusic hasn't budged one bit or listened to what an admin told him to do and I'm still potentially in jeopardy of losing the topic I most enjoy editing? My God!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough:, I share similar concerns with Mendaliv regarding the narrow scope of interest of the two editors involved and its implications on IBAN. But that remedy is probably the only solution short of a topic ban that could potentially fix these communication issues. Considering the amount of bad blood between the two, anything less would be completely ineffective. —Dark 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I support an IBAN between these two users; the multiple issues they and some others create involving anything in the WP:SOAPS project have driven many good possible (and some of them new who flee the site) editors from going anywhere near the articles they deal with; even compared to the MMA fun of last year and the worst of reality articles such as the Bad Girls Club series, Cebr and LLM's interactions make it impossible to build consensus without having them get into it over some wrong they can only see. This needs to be a collegian series of articles, not two editors trying to 'win' them. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Cebr1979 and Livelikemusic are banned from interacting with one another in all namespaces for three months. Violations of this interaction ban may result in blocks of escalating length up to the expiry of this ban.

Survey

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not sure if I'm supposed to be involved in the survey or not but, for the record, I support this. However, I don't think the proposal is clear enough. I think not reverting each other's edits and not talking to or about each other in talk pages (whether directly or indirectly) need to be specifically mentioned in the proposal, not just in the conversation above. I also think that where and to whom any infractions are to be reported need to be specifically stated in the proposal. All our Ts need to be crossed and our Is need to be dotted or we're going to all be back here again (and I think it's pretty safe to say that I'm not the only one who doesn't want that to happen).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps 3 months will be enough to learn new editing and behaviour patterns with regards to each other. Worth a try. Begoon  01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per my statement above. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have a question regarding this: How will it be enforced? Because that's pretty much the exact same thing DarkFalls has already told Livelikemusic (with the exception of not talking to each other in talk pages) and only Livelikemusic didn't listen. I followed the rules but, am back here once again anyways. So... if/when Livelikemusic breaks the rules again, who is going to be watching him and actually do something because noone watched or did anything last time, that's for sure! If anyone wants to see diffs as proof, let me know! Cebr1979 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocks. Someone breaks the interaction ban, they're facing a block to prevent them from continuing to break the interaction ban. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And this would happen how? You are going to follow-up on this or check-in on us now and then or I have to come running to you every time he breaks a rule this time? And if I don't come running to you, to whom do I run 'cause I'm not doing this again. Lastly, what reassurance do I have that this time someone is going to do something if (when) he breaks the rules? Cebr1979 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Interaction bans (along with several other kinds of restrictions) are publicly logged at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. To report a violation of the interaction ban, you would post (with supporting diffs) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Uninvolved admins then assess the report and administer sanctions if deemed warranted. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Cebr1979 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting to encourage more comments, or closure, before this gets archived as previous linked discussions were. There seems to be an issue, given the history, so maybe letting it drift off to archives again isn't the best result? Begoon  18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, once more

Some weeks ago we had a big thread here about Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) and his unconstructive behaviour in certain language-related debates, including one about the Gaulish language. Kwami seemed to narrowly escape some form of sanction in this thread mainly because he happened to have just gone on vacations/wikibreak that day. Recently he came back from that break and added a response to the thread (in the archives) which seemed quite defensive and unwilling to recognize any problems with his attitude . To make matters worse, he added a rather severe but unsubstantiated accusation against his opponents in the Gaulish debate (in which I suppose he meant to include me), claiming that we severely misrepresented a certain (unnamed) source. Challenged about this edit, he is now evading the issue and refusing to substantiate the accusation by specifying what passage in what source he is referring to . Given this hostile and unconstructive attitude, and given the fact that unsubstantiated accusations of serious misbehaviour such as source abuse are considered sanctionable personal attacks, I am afraid this issue needs to be re-opened and the question of longer-term sanctions (such as a revert limitation) for Kwamikagami needs to be re-examined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Where are these "personal attacks"? An editor (not you), who has since essentially admitted he was wrong on the point of fact he was so enraged about, said I should be sanctioned for insisting that we follow our sources, the basis for any edit on WP, and for following the lead of an admin who closed a debate. You're now bringing me to ANI, saying I should be sanctioned for defending myself when brought to ANI. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You made a specific accusation of a specific passage in some article being severely misrepresented, claiming that "anyone who uses a ref like that either hasn't read their own ref or is being dishonest". This is clearly a serious personal attack, unless you finally demonstrate (a) what passage in precisely what article you are referring to (note that people were referring to multiple articles by the same author(s), so this is not trivial), (b) where and by whom that article was being cited wrongly. You have been evading this question when challenged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not evading. I can't remember the details of discussions that happened several months ago. I do remember Cagwinn insisting that Lepontic be classified as a Continental Celtic language, when any intro to Celtic will tell you that CC is not a cladistic node. After being repeatedly challenged over a period of months (by you at times, if I remember correctly), he finally admitted that of course it's not actually a cladistic node, but that somehow that's irrelevent. Then there was the ref being used for the claim that some linguists classify Lepontic as a dialect of Gaulish. The ref used to support that was a footnote saying that "Gaulish" was a useless term, incoherent unless taken as a synonym for Celtic. Hardly a good ref, since that's not how we use the term Gaulish at Gaulish language. Someone eventually did turn up a source that actually supported the claim, which was good, but then they insisted that we keep the inappropriate source because it was more accessible. "Personal attack" is supposed to mean ad hominem attacks or abuse. It's not a "personal attack" to criticize people for the inappropriate content of their comments or edits. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwami you should stop believing that we are blind or stupid. Why you had ignored ANI report that was made against you in June 2014? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Kwamikagami edit-warring at Gaulish language again. You took break and you returned when you thought that no one will talk about that report again, of course why we will bring old matters but you are always busy in creating some new edit conflict or giving birth to same old conflicts. There was 100% consensus for putting you under edit restrictions, only one person hoped that you will discuss edits without these restrictions but now I am hopeless that you will ever do. For how long you have been disrupting Gaulish language and other language pages? You ever learned from previous incidents? I saw that you had your rollback right removed because of edit warring and no one said that you will ever have it again. If you are as free as any new editor you will still repeat the same behavior, Misplaced Pages:DONTGETIT. I read what you type for removing references but I also look for references and consensus yet you ignore them. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How have I disrupted anything? Where have I made any recent edits to any Celtic article? I received notice that charges were being made against me, so I defended myself. Last time I didn't defend myself after the initial charge, because I thought it was too petty to bother with, I was sanctioned, and one of the sactioning admins said it was my own fault, that I deserved to be sanctioned even if I hadn't done anything wrong, because I hadn't bothered to defend myself more vigorously. So this time I figured I'd better defend myself, so that doesn't happen again, and now I'm being brought up on charges for defending myself! FP is charging me with "personal attacks" for pointing out that people have used a ref that does not support the point they're using it for, and now you first criticize me for "ignoring" the ANI report, and then call me "disruptive" for not ignoring it! These damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't attacks are one of the reasons I've been glad to be away from WP. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwami says "any intro to Celtic will tell you that CC is not a cladistic node"; I suppose Kwami, despite showing no specialist knowledge of Celtic linguistics, knows better than Ranko Matasović (University of Zagreb, author of the Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, Brill, 2008)?

Matasović, Ranko, "Insular Celtic as a Language Area", in: Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Languages in Contact, Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2007, pp. 93-112.

P. 93, n. 1: "In broad terms, two theories are competing: (1) the traditional view, defended, among others, bu K.H. Schmidt (e.g. Schmidt 1977) and J. Koch (1992) classifies British together with Gaulish (and Lepontic, which is probably just an early offshoot of Gaulish) into Gallo-Brittonic, while the Goidelic languages remain as a separate branch of Celtic. (2) An alternative theory, defended by K. McCone (cf. e.g. McCone 1996, 2006, especially p. 171 ff.) and supported by P. Schrijver (Schrijver 1995), sees British and Goidelic as a separate Insular Celtic branch, while Gaulish and Lepontic are viewed as the Continental Celtic branch. Celtiberian, as is becoming increasingly clear, is almost certainly an independent branch on the Celtic genealogical tree, one that became separated from the others very early."

Kwami is already showing signs of re-starting his edit war, as he is now arguing again on Talk:Lepontic language. Cagwinn (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out there, Continental Celtic as generally understood includes Celtiberian, so the Matasović quotation is irrelevant. There is no agreement about the place of Lepontic in the Celtic tree, so there is no basis for this very special definition of Continental Celtic as Gaulish + Lepontic that to my knowledge nobody uses in practice. It's best to treat Celtiberian, Lepontic, Gaulish and Insular Celtic as independent branches of Celtic and Continental Celtic not as a branch but a term of convenience analogous to evolutionary grades in biological taxonomy. In cladistic terms, Continental Celtic is paraphyletic. "Cladistic node" and "branch" imply an analogy with "clade", a mono- or even holophyletic subgroup. Continental Celtic is not on the same level. There appears to be a common feeling that only widely accepted families and branches should be included in infoboxes. Just like "Fish", "Amphibia" and "Reptilia" are avoided in vertebrate taxoboxes, so should "Continental Celtic", "Gotho-Nordic", "Italo-Celtic", "Graeco-Aryan" and the like be avoided in language infoboxes. (Note also Paraphyly#Linguistics: the analogy of Continental Celtic with Formosan is even better.) Kwami is only following this general sentiment. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of paraphyletic nodes is not what the present troubles with Kwamikagami are about. The issue some weeks ago was his general stance of intransigent edit-warring, which had most lately been about another minor point where he was trying to push an obviously well-sourced point out of the article on the basis of some rather blatantly OR editorializing against what the sources said, and right now it is about him making unfounded accusations of serious misbehaviour against other editor, apparently on the basis of his own sketchy and faulty memory of what actually happened, and refusing to retract or substantiate those accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This current issue, while I'm leaning towards FP's assessments, seems to be a bit too subtle for me, I'm afraid. The previous discussion at /IncidentArchive844 seemed to have been much clearer and more actionable. Should we unarchive it for further discussion? --Joy (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that linguistically untrained Wikipedians will have trouble following this debate, although the biological analogy might help, perhaps the issue is better discussed on the talk page of WikiProject Languages or Linguistics. People there should understand the issue more readily and there would be a better chance to achieve a local consensus on the issue (inclusion of paraphyletic and other not strictly cladistic groups in infoboxes). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood me (in a somewhat condescending manner, but never mind). I'm saying the issue is subtle with regard to the relevant edit warring and civility policies. These issues do not appear to be half as serious as those laid out earlier. Indeed, if this was just a content dispute, it wouldn't be appropriate on ANI anyway. --Joy (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Misula89

Above user has made what appears to be a legal threat in their edit summary - not blatent but is how I interpreted it as being last editor. Could someone look into it. Amortias (T)(C) 11:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. But the article itself has some very serious BLP issues, not least of which is that if fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. As such, I've nominated it for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The OP did not notify the editor as required. I have notified the editor of this thread. —Farix (t | c) 14:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad, appoligies for the slip up. Amortias (T)(C) 17:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the issue further and it appears that Misula89 has a legitimate concern. A section of the article was copied directly from the article subject's IMDB page. I've removed it and deleted the affected revisions. Mike V • Talk 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Some urls are not permitted in that article because they don't belong to the authentic author's web site.

Please, stop from reediting the forbbiden urls or delete the article NOW or we are obligue to inform to the police.

Thanks! (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misula89 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I've had to issue Misula89 a Level 4 warning for vandalism of the article. The URLs he is changing are the IMDb profile and the subject official website. He has been changing them to random IMDb profiles and cypher-squatting pages. —Farix (t | c) 15:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Legitimate concerns or not, his editing was egregiously disruptive. Apparently, to make a point (assuming he really had a point), he vandalized the article repeatedly. He was also incompetent. I couldn't even take his legal threat seriously it was so poorly worded. I've indeffed the account. I'm going off-wiki so if another administrator believes my action was too harsh, feel free to do whatever you want, but if you unblock him, please monitor him.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

Could you take a look at User:SqueakBox edits? This editor insists in having the page List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame, which are quite enlighting. --Cavarrone 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at wikipedia have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments are just laughable which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Enfrocing (sic) BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: . You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". Cavarrone 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a Citizen's arrest, you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Misplaced Pages policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If they are applied reasonably and properly... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. None of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Misplaced Pages as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited in the list. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with no Misplaced Pages article whatsoever - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to WP:PORNBIO which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of Data analysis. The assertion that any of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Misplaced Pages like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates here. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in List of Italian actresses stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. Cavarrone 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, Cavarrone♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Misplaced Pages BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. Resolute 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. Resolute 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That allegation is simply false, Reso, all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is required to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to bowdlerize the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Misplaced Pages policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Misplaced Pages practice, disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that WP:BLP applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be removed immediately. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the solution I proose too, Wikidemon. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Misplaced Pages article counts as a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. Monty₈₄₅ 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is List of male performers in gay porn films, fully refd, while Template:Editnotices/Page/List of male performers in gay porn films needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention we already asked you at least twice which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that a reference is only Required when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Monty845 above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the Barack Obama article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The Ron Jeremy article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the Ron Jeremy article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. Cavarrone 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for wikipedia to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? Resolute 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• That you have challenged the factinclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. Monty₈₄₅ 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates WP:BLP, when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that is yes, see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered originl research because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at WP:BLP on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Recreating list

Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source. Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, List of Internet phenomena. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit. He/she was adding sources to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can cite IMDb for contentious material - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put specific names (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained the reason he excluded them, I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Misplaced Pages that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting en masse simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Misplaced Pages lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

werldwayd, you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see List of male performers in gay porn films. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark wikipedia demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have opened an RFC on the policy question at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons if anyone would like to participate there. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As a random example, consider Major League Baseball Player of the Month Award. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are preferable but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Accepted in which policy is that, Rich? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, MrBill3, do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection wikipedia offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" either Bill Clinton's article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

It has just been brought to my attention that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that anything involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this?

As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make wikipedia a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection wikipedia needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
  

Baseball Bugs, where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on wikipedia over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?

I'm quoting from an earlier comment...

• Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas.

Sorry, come again? You're saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Misplaced Pages. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal bias here, Scalhotrod, is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at wikipedia as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an extremely hasty generalization. One person complained on-site that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? moluɐɯ 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but we don't live in that world. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Jessie Andrews starred in Portrait of a Call Girl." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? moluɐɯ 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for Portrait of a Call Girl. So, for instance, if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. moluɐɯ 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue?" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Misplaced Pages has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn List of actors who got their baps out on camera in films where people don't generally get their baps out with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source is reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? moluɐɯ 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's not a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a directory of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of WP:COI: When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, regardless of who is advancing it, because it is not within the scope of Misplaced Pages's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. moluɐɯ 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of wikipedia while another is not. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Misplaced Pages. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.) that an actress wanting to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" moluɐɯ 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Misplaced Pages the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. moluɐɯ 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make List of actors whose career started after a Bryan Singer party and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not that far off. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Misplaced Pages porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. This actor found being labeled a model by Misplaced Pages quite controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that happens to be associated with Misplaced Pages. The actor example is laughable. Back to the subject at hand, no one is disputing (or confusing) the fact that every person on the list is question is in the adult industry; their articles prove that. Inline references were then provided to show that they had been in mainstream productions. Nothing shoddy was even attempted, but how 2 editors choose to respond is Draconian, naive, and ignorant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So if everything is on the up and up, and sources are so readily available, why can't one of those editors arguing in favor of the list take a bit of time away from arguing about it in multiple fourms and slap some references in the list article? Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The ones who have a problem with the list should assume responsibility for reviewing it - especially as the chief complainant here admits to having no knowledge of the subject. By fixing the list himself, maybe he'll learn something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, the onus is on those who wish to include potentially controversial material to insure that it is properly cited. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two problems. First, mass deletion of sourced content is disruptive no matter what the excuse, and the community usually will not stand for it. Second, the information is properly cited. This needless ruckus is over citing methodology, not whether this information is reliable sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

One problem. The content wasn't sourced. A blue link isn't a source. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You've made this silly argument enough times that everyone has read it by this point. Of course the information is sourced. You just want one of the sources copied from one place to a second place. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What I want is for articles to comply with policy. WP:BLP policy says contentious content on living persons must be sourced. Nothing anywhere in Misplaced Pages asserts that a blue link is a source. The existence of a blue link proves nothing beyond the fact that the subject has an article on Misplaced Pages. Nothing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a straw man argument with a dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeatedly claiming that blue links are held out as sources in order to argue against it, instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that they're proposing copying some of the sources from the articles back to the list. - ~~

Wikidemon is exactly right. What Andy and other's are asking is that when a list is created about people (presumably just those in the adult film industry?) that there be a reaffirmation of already sourced content. That's what this discussion is about is whether editor's should be required when compiling a list of people to reaffirm already sourced content. Because when a list is compiled from existing articles on WP that are reliably sourced, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made labout the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's certainly important for someone compiling such a list to be sure that the entries belong on the list. Someone had suggested categorization instead of lists. Guess what: Categories don't have citations. You have to go back to the article to ensure that the entry belongs in that category. Just as with a list. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we cannot just copy the sources used in the original articles for use in the list article? This seems like a legalistic or courtroom debate over something easy to fix! Alicb (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It takes many hours of work, and the last editor that attempted this was reverted almost immediately. Twice. moluɐɯ 04:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I twice invited User:SqueakBox to check the refs of the bluelinks of the Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies entries to verify that that they were indeed porn-stars (bluelinks not as "refs", but as leads to finding them). He stated he was unable to verify that many of them were porn actors (see Talk:Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies and BLP. The underlying articles state that they were and have refs (and some even use (porn star) or similar as a disambiguation-term in their article title). Based on those aspects, we seemingly have tons of actual bio articles (not just lists thereof) that are BLP problems by making these claims with bogus refs. He twice ignored my suggestion to push for remedying at that level. But I cannot WP:AGF of his statement that he could not verify the claims. The first two from the autobiog list that he says he could not verify were easy to verify from the linked refs in their articles. I added them as refs and he did not contest. And he also removed ones that did have substantial refs and discussion of high notability in the genre even within that Pornographic film actor article itself, just not in the list section. He also rejects cites to the autobiographies themselves because "google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy". If a person writes that he/she was a porn star (even in the title of the autobiog) and the publisher's blurb/summary of the book uses similar wording to describe this as a point of fame, isn't that pretty definitive and reliable?

I don't know much about this genre, and I am not often involved in "contentious" BLP claims (for whatever definition of that term you could envision). Obviously anyone can actually dispute (or even merely claim as disputable) any info, and adding cites to improve verifiability is a worthwhile activity in any place one finds it deficient. But I think this edit pattern is based on taking some intersection of BLP+RS policies to a nonsensical extreme or taking an overly disruptive and inefficient approach to solving what BLP problems that actually do exist. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I invite SqueakBox to start blanking List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee as many of the contentious allegations that the men listed on the page are in fact politicians are unsourced. While we're at it, I believe List of female Nobel laureates should also be blanked as there is no sources indicating that the Nobel laureates are indeed female, and that can also be contentious. Some sources on List of current Indian chief ministers do not specifically indicate that the politicians belong to that particular political party; that should also be partially blanked. On a more serious note, I realise that if there is some concern about the actual occupation of some of the individuals on the page and that the occupation is actually contentious, then it may merit removal. However this is simply absurd. I challenge anyone to explain why it is more contentious to be a porn star than to represent a specific political party. —Dark 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Having political preferences, and expressing them, are within societal norms for everyone in a free society. Having a gender is a given. You gotta source someone working in porn because, unlike having a political party or a gender, saying someone is a porn star is libelous if they are not. Performin sex acts in public, no matter how jaded we have gotten to it, is still not within societal norms. John from Idegon (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is the same situation, and it is consistent with the arguments raised here. Just imagine wrongly including a pedophile or a serial criminal in a member Nobel Committee list or in the Indian chief ministers list, potentially it is even more contentious. Cavarrone 10:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT aside, I find it odd that so many people are pushing the bizarre fiction that being a porn star is just another random occupation that nobody would ever find controversial and thus couldn't possibly have any BLP implications for real people and their lives off of Misplaced Pages. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So is every single instance of every politician (another just as controversial occupation) referenced across this site? If its not, then you're just being anti-porn. Which is OK, but its better if you just admit it rather that argue this stance. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I love porn. You're being anti-WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Time for a ruling

Seems like it's time for a ruling by an administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A ruling on what? Admins don't determine content issues, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus here that anyone should be sanctioned regarding behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right here. The only solution is going to be to source the list. That does not require any ruling by an admin. Nor does the fact that most people involved could have handled themselves and/or communicated better. Resolute 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The content issues are a distraction from the behavior issues which are in the purview of this page, e.g. alleged disruptive behavior by edit warring against a consensus. It's time for a ruling by an administrator. The content issues can be continued on the article's talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

*Not guilty by reason of insanity What are we talking about again? I haven't even read this thread or know who it's about.--v/r - TP 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's see that. AndyTheGrump is nominating for deletion a list article for lack of references, and at the same time deleting references on it based on a particular interpretation of BLP which is being heavily contested. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the interpretation of policy is settled, instead of gaming the system by starting debates at venues away from the ones where you've been questioned. Diego (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How about actually reading my rationale for deletion? I nominated it for deletion not because it is unreferenced, but because there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the subject matter (a trivial intersection) meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion was closed by an administrator with the result to Keep. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked the closer to revert, and/or to provide an explanation for this precipitate action. If none is given, I shall raise the matter at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Closing an AfD after five hours, when few uninvolved contributors have had a chance to look at the issue seems entirely unjustified to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This does need to go to deletion review. There was division on the matter and the nomination was not even open for 24 hours. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

We're far from the point IMO where anyone deserves a block or ban based on this specific incident so far, but to preserve the record for the inevitable next time, I just wanted to consolidate a couple now-stale behavioral issues here. Perhaps a closing administrator can consider warning parties against escalating things.

• 3RR violation on this page (mentioned above)
• WP:OWN and WP:TEND issues, process gaming, edit warring a notice I tried to put on the top of the deletion discussion that it was referring to a blanked page. along with nonsense block threats on my talk page.
• Next time?? I believe ATG and/or Squeak have threatened that no outcome of the RfC at WP:BLP will deter them from repeatedly blanking lists of names. Let's hope they don't, but just noting that if it does happen, we saw it coming. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that drawing attention to the way you attempted to disrupt an AfD nomination by posting a misleading assertion into the middle of the AfD rationale is going to do your case any good? (note that the 'blanked' page had been unblanked shortly after I removed Wikidemon's original misplaced post. And note how Wikidemon continued to edit-war it back in.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The diffs speak for themselves, my friend. Please don't make up nonsense to try to disparage the good faith editors around here. Whatever your cause you're not doing it any service by being rude, aggressive, edit warring, and process gaming. If you can at least try to get along with other editors instead of making the community's Misplaced Pages experience that much more miserable you might find them a little more open to your efforts. No doubt you'll have a venomous comeuppance for that, so I'll just say in advance, se ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The diffs speak for themselves - you dumped your commentary right into the middle of my AfD rationale. As for 'good faith' how about showing some by actually finding proper sources for the List of uncredited bit-parts in straight-to-video non-porn movies played by pornographic actors that you seem to think is of such importance to this encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Untrue that. See ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not by you, though. You proceeded to blank most of the list and shortly dereafter nominated it for deletion; Wikidemon's notice was attempting that editors arriving to the AfD could have an adequate reading of the article that was being debated, and it was accurate at the time it was placed - and it certainly wasn't "in the middle" of your deletion rationale at any point. Diego (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see Misplaced Pages:RS/IMDB#IMDb, numerous threads on WP:RSN, etc, etc) that didn't even in some cases state that the persons involved were pornographic actors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you nominated the article for deletion two days after blanking the content that had been there for about seven years. And, as the point of debate was that the entries had valid references at the linked articles, the fact that IMDB references were placed inline at the list is a red herring. When you blank an article prior to nominating it and keep removing all hints that such content exists, you're breaking a long-standing rule of AfDs and showing very little respect for the editors that come to review the nomination. Diego (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Working thru this entire thread, I can't help but conclude that SqueakBox has way too much time on his hands by blanking this article for an incredibly silly reason. And AndyTheGrump violated the policy known as WP:BEANS. As an Admin, I'm very tempted to sanction one or both of them for wasting everyone's time on this, but I'm going to do the laziest solution: this article is indefinitely protected from further edits until there is a consensus about how to fix it. Now I'll be unavailable for an hour or more, so another Admin is welcome to undo my protection if adults can be found to handle this mess. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There were some adults that started the process of adding references before the full protection, but I will defer to your judgment on this and hopefully in due time, the adults can get back to editing and improving this article in a collaborative effort.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to a thoughtful request, I've went ahead & unprotected the page. I probably acted too hastily, but anyone reading thru this thread would be puzzled -- if not annoyed -- at the kerfuffle here. Common sense would hold that the articles on these people would be sufficient proof they are porn actors/actresses -- although sourcing their roles in different movies might prove more difficult. (In which cases, the links to the movies should then be removed -- not blanking the whole list in a childish pique!) -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment

The WP:BLP and other policies make it pretty clear that entries in lists should be properly referenced individually when there is any dispute. If, as many claim here, the article's make the claim that an actor/actress worked in pornography, then it should be a simple case of copying the reference from one list to another; creating a new reference regarding their work in the adult industry from IMDB, as I have seen done here, should be unnecessary (and opens the door for circular referencing as IMDB is itself based on user submitted content, which could have come from Misplaced Pages). Using the IMDB for the mainstream works the actor/actress appeared in would not seem contentious to me, as the source is the movie credits in the film itself, which need not be online. Perhaps the adding of sources could be done in draft space.

As for the claims that this is merely tedious, I don't really find that credible. If this were an automatically generated category list, then the lack of inline sources would make sense; however as it was a manually generated list, the burden should have been filled when individual entries were added. The "tedious" task would in fact be for the uninvolved editor to click each entry in the list to very the claim was sourced. Knowledge of who worked in the adult industry is not necessarily common. It was entirely appropriate that the list be blanked until sources were added by editors willing to do so. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To actually verify the claim, would they not still have to click the source? No matter where it is. Simply having a source is not verification. The purported tedium is not much different from the ideal case of everything being cited. moluɐɯ 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please delete 2 articles?

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

Can you delete 2 irrelevant articles, which are created by User:Damián80, who was blocked twice for edit warring. .

List of En otra piel characters is poorly written, and there's unreferenced and irrelevant information. List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes is also unreferenced and Misplaced Pages's not an programming guide. Best wishes. Zeta54 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Also that person undid my adds without no reason. I just have no words

Any administrator who take this subject, let me say that this user is a probablemnte puppet Sky0000, Not sure, but both users to edit the same manner and through a cell, I'm not making accusations, but editions of this user are similar to those of Sky0000.--Damián (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot my passwords again and I had to do new one please that person never leaves me alone because I did 2 accounts more now all accounts are closed and I promise I will not make new accounts but please solve my problem and do not ban me. Zeta54 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a verification of accounts. Anyway I do not understand your message, if it comes to you, which I can not be sure, you should have requested his release on your main account, if you are Sky0000, but if not, do not understand coming your application to request that these two items are deleted.--Damián (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

, I discovered that person also had a puppet account. Zeta54 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think an article doesn't belong on wikipedia, your best bet is to use the Articles for deletion process. This page is more for emergency administrator intervention or other issues that need quick resolutions. Content disputes like this can be more easily and appropriately handled at WP;AFD or on the article talk pages depending on the specifics. Hope that helps! Alicb (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

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

I have noticed this legal threat of Maura Kelley (talk • contribs against user Helpsome. Please act. JimRenge (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "Please send me your email address so I can have the professional wildlife experts and their attorneys contact you." JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User blocked for legal threats. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user following her withdrawal of the legal threat. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Blatant plagarism of public domain sources by a Misplaced Pages administrator.

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

One of the recent articles created by @Rosiestep: came to my attention last night, and when I read it the phrasing seemed strange for an article written by an editor. After looking at the cited sources, I realized that it was because the entire article was plagarized from 100+ year old texts. I"m not talking about 'closely paraphrased', I'm talking about extensive verbatim copying, without any rewriting. Cited to the source, but not attributed. Not a copyright violation, but blatant plagarism.

So, I looked at the last five articles she had worked on. Every single one was exactly the same, thrown together from the cited public domain sources. In some cases, two or three sentences in a row from one source, then some from another. In some cases, three or four paragraphs in a row. In one case, the plagarized text crossed a gap where there were missing pages in the Google books scan, and the mangled sentence fragments were reproduced word for word.

Specifically, with diffs that show the extent of the plagarized content...

1. John Judson Ames - content plagarized mostly verbatim (with a bit of rearrangement) from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 11-18 - removed with this edit.
2. Bancroft Library - content plagarized from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 163-166 - removed with this edit.
3. California Silk Center Association - some content plagarized from An illustrated history of Southern California, page 463 (the lead) was fixed by @Huon:, further content plagarized from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 146-148 - removed with this edit and this edit.
4. Joseph D. Moody - entire article plagarized verbatim (except for changing the tense of sentences) from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 138 and 139 - removed with this edit.
5. Los Angeles Plaza - content plagarized from Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern ..., Volume 4, pages 247-255 - removed with these edits and further content plagarized from The Quarterly, Volumes 3-4, pages 41-44, including directly a broken sentence spanning two missing pages in the Google book scan, removed with these edits.

I have by far not looked at all of her contributions, but out of the last five articles to which she has made substantial edits (most of which she created), every one was a blatant case of plagiarism, and at this point is seems apparent that there are many more. This is unacceptable.

I'm well aware that there will be complaints and drama about this, and, to be honest, I care little about anything said by the apologists that typically pop up around this kind of thing. I have discussed this off-wiki with several admins, who will remain nameless unless they chose to speak up, and one advised I bring this to ANI, while another said he would simply G12 the articles. It beggars belief to believe that an editor who has been an administrator for five years, and claims to possess a Masters degree, is unaware of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding plagarism, or even ignoring policy, the simple ethical issue involved. This is not something that should be ignored or dismissed as trivial, it is something that if ignored will directly serve to discredit the project.

Again, this is not a matter of a copyright violation, because the material is in the public domain. It's also not something that is just a 'policy issue'. It's a matter of academic ethics. Also, when an editor types in the box, unless they attribute the content to a source, they are claiming that the content is their own work, and claiming that they hold copyright in that content. In this case, that claim was patently false.

This is not a dispute between her and I, and is not something that she needs to explain or apologize to me about, which is why I have not attempted to 'resolve this' somewhere else. This is something that she needs to justify and explain to the community, and there needs to be far more eyes than mine looking to see that this is fixed, given that whether intentional or not, given her prolific editing it is something that could potentially span hundreds of articles. Revent 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• So why are you removing the text rather than just providing proper attribution? I also don't understand your reasoning for bringing this straight to AN/I without first trying to raise it with the editor in question. Monty₈₄₅ 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like he did try to raise it with her but what do I know. I suppose one could say don't template the regulars, though... /me shrugs Cathfolant (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I supposed to personally take responsibility for overseeing if an administrator cleans up after themself? Or am I supposed to personally look at every single one of her articles? It's not a dispute between me and her, like I said. Removing the material and providing a diff is a simple way to show the extent of the problem. Revent 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess someone other than you should give this an extra look, then. That was your intent, correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentialy, yes. Let me make it blatantly clear. I'm not here asking for sanctions, I really couldn't care less if she is 'punished' or not, I dont even care if it was intentional or not. I'm bringing it up here because it is an issue that requires the 'intervention of administrators or experienced editors' to see that it is actually addressed, specifically because of her prolific editing over time, and the fact that the ones I looked at were all plagarism. This is not the 'request for sanctions' noticeboard, though it is used that way, it is the 'incidents' noticeboard. Revent — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about trying to settle this with the editor, person to person? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Revent is asking for help with that, since this seems to be a rather herculean task to do properly. :-/ , (lots of edits to go through); and they don't know the best process to follow here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. My first time here... a bit disconcerting. I made a mistake by not adding the source attribution template at the bottom of the articles immediately; given time, I would have as I have on other articles. Check out my user:Rosiestep/Tools page and you'll see that I've got the source attribution template listed there for ease in access as I use it from time to time. I will add the source attribution to the pages that need it now. If I need to do anything else, just nudge me. My apologies for incoveniencing your weekend with this problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you were still working on it. That explains it then.

I heard Revent say something to the effect that they would assist with that if you needed any help, if I read that right. In any case, Have fun! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Hi. I hope that you aren't under the impression that this was a personal attack on you in some way, as it truly was not intended to be so. I don't know you, and as I said, was not here asking for sanctions... I was trying to bring enough eyes to the issue to ensure it was taken care of, as from what I had seen it was an ongoing problem. I only looked at your most recent edits, and so I honestly had/have no idea if you add the templates later. I merely felt, as I tried to make clear, that it was not something that should remain a 'me and you' issue, since it was not a content dispute, and not something that I could in any meaningful way personally ensure was addressed. (There's also the matter of simply making other aware of the issue 'in general', not just regarding you.)

The big problem with adding the attribution template later is that Misplaced Pages is mirrored...constantly, and there is no insurance that those mirrors are of the latest version of the content. If a version of the page is created with unattributed content, that version of the page is effectively making the claim that that content is your personally copyrighted work, and licensed to Misplaced Pages. Even if you correct it later, that version still exists, and could be reverted to, restored, or simply distributed in that version. It's important (in a sense that some people will undoubtedly consider trivial, but ethically) that the content is properly attributed when added. To do otherwise opens Misplaced Pages to accusations (whether in good faith, or otherwise) of ignoring plagiarism, even if it was later fixed.

I am perfectly willing, if needed, to help you fix any articles where the attribution is still needed, and you can feel perfectly free to revert my removal of the content (just please fix the issue). Like I mentioned, the main reason why I removed it instead of just adding the attribution was to generate the diffs that showed the size of what had been copied, so that it would be clear it was significant and not just me being pedantic.

Anyone who wants to close this now can feel free, IMO. Revent 04:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the source attribution template to the articles in need of it. I can see how my slowness/sloppiness proved I wasn't thinking it through... mirrors and all. Sometimes, skipping a step is no big deal and sometimes it is. Because plagarism is a big deal, I'll take this as a friendly reminder to avoid skipping/postponing the source attribution step again. As for the removed content, I'll take a look at restoring some/all in the next couple of days. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, and so you did. That was a bunch of work done very quickly! Did Revent help? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Revent:, whatever you thought, you owe Rosie a big apology. You should never come running to ANI talking about a seasoned contributor in this manner, it looks malicious and looks like you're trying to get her into trouble. You should have simply asked her first. All her articles need is text attribution in addition to the source (which she's clearly quite happy to go back and do). It is quite acceptable to use PD material on wikipedia and our resource would greatly benefit from public domain text, however close to the original. This sort of thing really angers me on wikipedia. Please don't do it again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Big apology"? The question is whether Rosie screwed up or not, and it seems we now have it from the horse's mouth. -- Ohc  07:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he owes her an apology. Regardless of whether she forgot to add the attribution template there was absolutely no need for that hostile tone, reporting her as if she was a vandal. If you can't see that it was inappropriate to come running here instead of notifying her first.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm not going to argue with you. All I have to say to you is that, based on what you have just said, you have apparently not read all of my earlier comments. The issue needed to be addressed regardless of when, or if, she logged back in. Revent 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not a big apology, perhaps a small one. Many editors think they can copy paste material into an article, then work on cleaning it up. That isn't the case, and when the material is subject to copyright, some of us spend a fair amount of time rev-deling old versions. That isn't necessary in this case, because it is pd material, but why not include the attribution notice in the first edit, rather than a later one? I agree it would have been a better practice to send a personal note rather than a template, but when you are poking through contributions and finding many issues, I can understand the desire to notify quickly and a template is easy.

I also note that the posts about the issues were archived, within hours and without a response. Many of us have noticed editors removing notices from talk pages without a response, and it is a red flag, not proof of anything, but a big red flag. Could user:Revent have tried again, to make sure before coming to ANI? Of course, and that would have been a better option, but please note the OP asked advice of several admins, one of whom recommended posting here. Is an editor with under 10K edits supposed to tell an admin that their advice to check in with experienced editors is wrong? That's asking a lot.

I don't think we should be castigating someone for identifying a potential problem, notifying the other party multiple times, and after getting no response (but evidecne that the post was seen), and advice from an admin to post here, actually followed that advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that the ANI post, and in fact Rosie's first comments here, were a couple of hours before the templates were archived from her talk page - hardly the big red flag you talk about, and not really reason to jump straight to this noticeboard.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like to me this issue was resolved amicably with both editor's acting in good faith. Job well done!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• wtf is the big deal? It's PD material so no laws are broken. Ethics arn't written into policy here. Geeze. Case of a nuclear explosion for something that isn't even wrong in the legal or policy sense and just violated one editor's 'ethics'. Perhaps it is ethically wrong, but that doesn't warrant the level of fuel generated here. Next time, let's try to not start drama unless there is actual cause?--v/r - TP 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me too that the matter was settled very well between the two editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Profanity and abuse directed by IP editor against myself

Not sure where else to put this but do I have to put up with this abuse from IP editor at 108.20.78.7?? Quis separabit? 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed their comment and added a warning. If they drop the issue, great. If they reply with anything else then I won't hesitate to block. If another admin feels like a block is already warranted, go right ahead. In short, Rms125a@hotmail.com, No: you don't have to deal with that. But it was several days ago at this point. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But it was several days ago at this point.

I am not onwiki 24/7; I reported it as soon as I saw it. It was on his talk page not mine. Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile tears. A passive-aggressive abuser. He (Rms) picks a fight then cries to mommy when he's stood up to in the most invisible corner of WP. Rms is nothing but a bully here. I had conceded on an editorial point and he still picked this fight. Take a good look at the edits... I made a sincere reassertion of arguments for "off-topic" while noting some lack of AGF by him. I fairly quickly conceded the editorial point after someone else came along and gave a civil explanation for the reversion. Everything was perfectly fine at that point. It should have been over and done. But, Rms couldn't resist posting his snooty, and snotty "lesson" on my talk page. He just couldn't help but to essentially call the IP "stupid". Then he had the gall to complain that I was abusive to him in my response. Well, that's GARBAGE. The only way to stop a passive-aggressive twit is to call that spade a spade. Rms, nobody should have to "put up with" your own abusive game. I won't.

There's nothing more to see here. As far as I'm concerned, this fight is over and done with. I'm moving on (as I tried to previously before being chased down by Rms). You can "block" me if you like, but that would be foolish and you wouldn't be considering the big picture.

I'm going to do two more things related our unfortunate digression before I go: 1) I'm going to revert the deletion of my "special comments" on my talk page. That's an important matter of principle. To have deleted my response without deleting Rms's also-inappropriate snark was an improper judgement made before Rjd had all the facts. 2) After that, I'm going to blank the whole page because it's all very stupid. All of this digression is very stupid.

108.20.78.7 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stupid question. Wouldn't this navbox be better as a simple succession box? --NE2 06:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked section as resolved for now. The user was active and refrained from personal attacks/civ issues. I'll keep an eye on them for any other issues. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: The most comments by the IP (05:48, 4 August) on this thread make it quite clear that this is not resolved. Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::: "The user was active and refrained from personal attacks/civ issues." is inaccurate ("passive aggressive, snooty, snotty, bully"). Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, am dropping it for now, despite IP bad faith. Quis separabit? 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User Technmaticity approving articles apparently w/o reviewer rights

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

Technmaticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who does not seem to have wp:reviewer rights Technmaticity rights has been 'approving' AfC articles and moving them to article space.

• Approval notice of Nakul Ambilkar diff
• Approval notice of Luis Valadares Tavares diff
• Move of Luis Valadares Tavares to article space
• Move of Nakul Ambilkar to article space

These articles do not appear to be ready for article space. Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

His blanking of this section here is a bit telling on what we are dealing with. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for blanking out this area, actually I was confused a little. Anyways, do we need to have some specific rights in order to accept articles? It looks like the answer would be yes, that's why I've been put up here. The thing is, that I do know that which article to accept or not and I was following those specified rules only to accept the articles. It is holiday here, therefore I just thought of helping you guys by reviewing some severe backlogged articles. If you don't like this act of mine, then I'm ready to not to do so again in future (but please tell me that what do I need to do in order to have article approval rights?) Anyways Thanks and I'm sorry for what I did due to lack of information. Sorry again. Technmaticity (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Technmaticity. Please read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants to see the requirements for reviewing draft articles. The problem is, if articles are moved to mainspace when they are not ready they may be deleted, which is unfair to the developers of the draft. One of the drafts is full of promotional language, and the other is a BLP which is almost unsourced. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ok so I've read that page and it looks like I need to have minimum of 500 edits and at least 90 days old account. So from now on, I'll try to achieve this target and then in future I shall apply to review articles with full authority. And one more thing, If I'll get selected as the reviewer then is there any rules specified that "I would need to be review x number of articles in y time-period?" And can you also link me to the "guide to review" or something similar. And just one thing, is everything clear now? I mean; will I be excused this time for doing changes without permission? ...Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technmaticity (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Apart from this, note that you do not need to be a WP:REVIEWER to review AfC submissions. The permission is for reviewing pending changes, not AfC. This ambiguous name has caused many misunderstandings, leading users to request rights they don't actually need. Zhaofeng Li 12:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AfC has been greatly harmed by below-par reviewers in the past, which is why the restriction is now in place. The review is often a new editor's first contact into Misplaced Pages, and rejecting a review for no good reason, or passing it through only for it to wind up at AfD is extremely harmful to our well-being as it gives the newbie the impression they're fighting a loosing battle in contributing. You have got to have a solid grounding of basic Misplaced Pages policies for article inclusion to review successfully, and I personally think the easiest way to demonstrate this is a good track record at AfD via AfD Stats. Of course, now that tighter restrictions are in place, the pool of available and competent reviewers is reduced, leading to an insane backlog which is more and more frequently "jump started" by people just writing things in mainspace anyway as they can't be bothered to wait. Ritchie333 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A related question: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants says: Only users listed on this page will be able to use the AFC helper script.. I don't see this user listed there (or recently added/removed), yet their edit summaries include the AFCH link, which seems to indicate script use, as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Quite possibly I am - I'm easily confused... Begoon  13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I can't see anything mentioning that WP:REVIEWER userright is required in the criteria, nor anything in the gadget code that enforces it. Some editors on the list aren't in the usergroup (e.g. QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV and Pigsonthewing). Could you clarify? Zhaofeng Li 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:REVIEWER isn't a requirement, though it was considered. You have to add your name to a participants group, after which the tool will work, but there is a "soft" requirement of 500 edits (ie: you can still add your name if you're under that but you might well be reverted out of the group). Ritchie333 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Zhaofeng Li 14:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, as I mentioned, this user doesn't appear to even be in the list... Shouldn't that have prevented script use (or at least use of the official script)? Begoon  14:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up that one of the improperly moved entries, Praneet Sah, appears to have been the subject of some previous spurious editing at AFC. This led to the SPI here. I'm not sure that there is a direct connection, but Technmaticity seems to be attempting to promote Sah at the Online journalism in India entry. EricEnfermero 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Which I just removed again, as uncited, before you posted this, after they reverted your removal... Praneet sah was, indeed, one of the related articles: moved here... They dropped the surname capitalisation after this G11: Praneet Sah Begoon 

Update: RHaworth actioned my speedy G11 on Praneet sah (thank you). Worth noting that Technmaticity contested the speedy instantly, which is hardly consistent with the position of "sorry, I was just helping to fix a backlog because I had time", nor with the fact that they "approved" that article at AFC as their first action after 10 innocuous edits for autoconfirmed, then edit-warred to add the guy to Online journalism in India. I added to the SPI at Cerefo. I remain concerned that they could (it seems) access AFCH scripts immediately they were autoconfirmed. I find that quite worrying. Begoon  17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that Technmaticity removed sourced mention of Amit Agarwal to replace with Praneet sah. What not just add Pranset sah? Amit Agarwal was not wikilinked in the article at that time. I did start this discussion: Talk:Online journalism in India#Removal of mention of Amit Agarwal Jim1138 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe they thought it would be less "noticeable" if they swapped a name/details this time instead of adding one - who knows? They've been trying since March to shoehorn this guy in any way they can, it appears. I commented at your talkpage discussion. Begoon  04:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Technmaticity blocked for using multiple accounts: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cerefo Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish page move ban: request for clarification

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

SMcCandlish was recently banned for three months from making page moves following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish, which resulted from undiscussed moves of approximately 250 animal breed articles. During that discussion, and also before it, he was repeatedly told in the clearest possible terms, and by numerous editors, that articles should not be moved without discussion if the move is potentially contentious. He also cannot fail to be aware that issue of capitalisation of bird names is a contentious one in Misplaced Pages. In that context, is his listing of a requested move of Swedish Blue duck to Swedish blue duck at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests acceptable to the community? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I often misunderstand, but think it's clear that he should not actually move, while a listing like this is exactly the required prior discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't see the issue here if it was a controversial move request at WP:RM. He wants to move a page, he realises others might not agree, so he should start a discussion about it. That's exactly how we should do things - consensus will play out. His request for a technical and uncontroversial move appears to have been declined. I would also see a problem if SMcCandlish had started a bulk (eg: 20+) of requested moves, but not one. Ritchie333 11:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• This is patently vexatious, frivolous nonsense by Justlettersandnumbers on at least three levels, and this editor's pattern of following me around and making bad-faith assumptive objections to misc. things I do or say (RM is just a request/suggestion, not an action!) with regard to biology articles is starting to look like obsessive wikistalking. Is that acceptable to the community?

1. Capitalization of the common names of bird species (e.g. "Bald Eagle" vs. "bald eagle") was formerly a contentious issue on WP, settled at RfC sevearal months ago. It has nothing whatsoever to do with names of landraces or breeds of domestic livestock, even if some of them are birds. That contention is over and wouldn't be applicable to this RM even if it were not.
2. MOS:LIFE is crystal clear that "general names for groups or types of organism" are given in lower case (except where containing a proper name or starting a sentence). This includes landraces. (Formal breeds are not addressed, and it's expected that an RfC will determine at some point whether to capitalize them, as most specialist sources do and most general-audience sources do not; that debate is not relevant here.] Not only is there no question as to what MOS:LIFE means here, it even specifically uses a landrace, the Van cat as an example, to be extra-double-plus clear about it. There, ergo, is no reason whatsoever to expect that the requested move would in fact be controversial. Manufacturing a "controversy" simply because one is, at best, confused as to what MOS says, or at worst trying to get another editor's goat, is not indicative of any actual meaningful controversy.
3. Finally, my move ban specifically directs me to use RM process, not manually move things myself, and I am complying. The uncontroversial moves subprocess of RM is part of RM process, by definition. Hounding me for having a faintly different idea of what is or is not "controversial" smacks of though-crime, and in this case, policy clearly backs my interpretation anyway. RM process is flexible, and procedurally accounts for RM nominations believed to be noncontroversial to be flagged with ease by anyone as not noncontroversial. I.e., there is a process for this, and running to ANI is not it.

I have to suggest that WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to Justlettersandnumbers, as this ANI filing isn't just vexatious and frivolous, but an abuse of process, as well as assumptive of bad faith.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - I assume you did want to raise a requested move on Swedish Blue duck? I can't see evidence you have - I've looked at the talk page and there is no RM template. Nor is the page in Category:Requested moves. Ritchie333 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really; the move idea is now moot.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Perfectly acceptable. The admins who patrol RM/TR (I'm one of them) are supposed to give consideration to anything listed there and if they think it will be controversial they take it to a full discussion. And if anyone then contests it, the move will be reverted and a full discussion will be started. If he was repeatedly listing articles at RM/TR that had to get taken to a full discussion as controversial then that would be a problem, but I don't see that as the case here. This is the way SMcCandlish should be handling his restriction. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see it differently. I do a fair amount of move requests. When I see a number form the same editor, I usually spot check some, but if I know the editor and their history of getting things right, I do not review carefully every one. I think this is a reasonable practice, as there are sometimes hundreds of move requests in a batch. Technical and uncontroversial ought to mean exactly that - virtually no one is likely to object, and the main checking ought to be that the editor didn't mangle a name. However, User:SMcCandlish is well aware that capitalization issues have been contentious. Maybe this class is different, but the way to determine that is to propose or two on the talk page, and make sure there is no push back from the community. It may well turn out that SMcCandlish is right, but if arguments need to be made and accepted, it does not qualify as a technical request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves: "If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself.... f you are unable to complete... the move, request it below." The existence of one capitalization controversy a month ago over one batch of moves does not indicate that all moves involving capitalization changes are likely to be controversial. A lone editor, with a history of rantily disputing misc. unconnected things I do or say with regard to animal articles (and who is following me around from horse to sheep and now duck articles, that this editor has shown no other interest in but undoing what I do, and has been actively conspiring with both horse and bird editors in this regard for months now in a WP:FACTION formation), is not "push back from the community", it's one individual with a personal issue. Another unilaterally acting editor who PoV-pushes the article in question to remove information in a way that fundamentally changes the article and makes it seem like the move idea didn't make sense, but who then later fesses up on the talk page that, oops, there actually was a reliable source after all for the info they just removed, is not push back from the community, it's a mistake. As already noted, there was no reason at all to expect that move to be controversial; a similar one I requested just before it was not, nor was another a day or three ago. The waters have thus already been tested. The "controversy" here is entirely fake, generated by animosity in one case, and false changes to the article in the other. If you think that capitalization changes should be prohibited from speedy RM procedure, you'll need to take that up at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves and get RM's instructions rewritten. I decline to be prosecuted for following the RM procedures you say you are so familiar with, after another ANI case (involving the very same vexatious complaint-filer) explicitly directed me to follow those procedures (after that ANI case was blatantly canvassed to vote-stack against me, no less). I've already blown my entire day's editing time dealing with this nonsense. ANI does more harm than good yet again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that Justlettersandnumbers should back off, stop hounding SMcCandlish, and let the settled capitalization issue be. SMcCandlish is just doing the thankless work of implementing a consensus in places that have it wrong still. Where is the controversy in that, except in so far as Justlettersandnumbers wants to stir one up in each place? Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of trying to weasel his way around a topic ban, McCandlish should just stop any activity connected with moves. Unless he actually likes being dragged to ANI every few days. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a topic ban, I have a well-defined temporary ban on directly moving articles (topic has nothing to do with it), with instructions to use the RM processes, which I'm doing. Stopping "any activity connected with moves" would clearly be unreasonable, especially since most of my RMs (and CfRs) go the way I propose them, and always have, because I think before I propose them. It's like you think an instruction to obey traffic laws, after I was found to be speeding, means never, ever drive again. Thanks, though, for making your personal hostility clear, and making what sure looks like a threat to abuse the ANI process for disruptive, vindictive purposes. Did you have anything else collegial to add, anything else conductive to collaboration?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The complainant here says otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem like it can pertain to anyting I've said (my first two sentences are matters of record, not opinion, and the last three were directed to you, and Justlettersandnumbers hasn't had anything to say about them). I'm wondering why you feel empowered to speak for Justlettersandnumber, who is capable of making their own posts, instead of addressing what I've raised with you above, like calling me a weasel and trying to reinterpret my very narrow editing restriction to a broad one that contracts its own wording. Do you actually fail to see the conflict between "should just stop any activity connected with moves." (you) and "may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth" (previous ANI decision)? The restriction was narrow with the specific intent that it not restrict more broadly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. --John (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment': The line between a "landrace" and a "breed" in animals is ill-defined. In either case, this duck is not a species, , so the decision at WP:Birds is inapplicable to articles on breeds or landraces. A the RM there is a reasonable case made to keep the capitalization. While it is true that SMC has not "moved" an article, he is a bt over-focused and has been quick to engage in personal attacks (as here) against those who thwart his efforts in the slightest degree. JLAN is not hounding or stalking SMC; JLAN edits articles on European domestic poultry, this no doubt cropped up on his watchlist. SMC would do well to focus his efforts on species of animals, not breeds. His responses here need to be scrutinized, as his pattern of attacking others is what the real problem is here, IMHO Montanabw 21:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant and incorrect anyway. This ANI is not about what that difference might be, it's about whether it was somehow wrong to propose at RM to move an article that said it was about a landrace to an article title that complies with MOS with regard to landraces. As for breeds and landraces, the article Breed's first sentence entirely adequately explains what a breed is, and Landrace clearly distinguishes it from a breed. All you have to do is read them. But again this is off-topic here, and has nothing to do with this proceeding filed by Justlettersandnumbers making allegations they can't support. So are you; you seem to be unaware that making accusations like "his pattern of attacking others" without proof is itself a personal attack, one made right here in ANI. See unclean hands and WP:KETTLE. Shall I link to all the hyperbolic accusations you've posted on my talk page before? Shall we examine them for civility? Next, no one has cited any "decision at WP:Birds", at all, ever, in this discussion or anything related to it. (What decision are you talking about? The birds project doesn't set policy, and doesn't cover domestic duck species anyway.) Your statement elsewhere that MOS:LIFE only applies to species is incorrect; again, just actually read it. Finally, I note this post by you in which you seem to indicate that you're using ANI as some kind of entertainment/sport. Given how frequently you seem to go out of your way to clash with me, and to stir up trouble against me, like canvassing WT:BIRDS against me in a recent ANI discussion about sheep disambiguation, well, I'll let others make up their own minds about that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This user was banned from making moves. The Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests is explicitly not for simple moves based on simple capitalization (it suggests those be done directly). It's for moves where a user can't make the move themselves for technical reasons. What was the single problem with making the move directly? The topic ban and the topic ban alone. This was just an attempt at an end run around a topic ban. If this user had suggested discussion first that would be fine, but the topic ban is not a technical glitch in need of repair. If the ban was meant to disallow undiscussed page moves, then submitting a request to Technical requests is still, by definition, a request for an undiscussed move. I don't think asking for an undiscussed move to be processed can be framed as "participating in RM discussions", without standing on your head. Whether it was contentious in subject or not, it was an attempt at a move without discussion. Actionable? I don't know, but if it's allowed, it doesn't seem to prevent the issue he was topic banned in order to prevent. The user could say every discussionless move they request couldn't be considered contentious, and move the same number of articles without any discussion. That's a fence with an open gate, that just makes more work for others, and changes nothing else. Since I don't think the user should assume a similar request would pass Someone could reasonably disagree with the move, I would guess they won't try it that exact way again. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a bunch of contorted WP:WIKILAWYERing and indefensible negative assumptions. Instructions on procedural pages (like those I quoted directly above), as well as editing restrictions, are written in plain English and mean what they say, not what they can, with herculean effort, be twisted into meaning to someone who wished they said something different, like an unstated ban on using one vs. another means of injecting a page into RM processes.

Frivolous ANI filings are what "makes more work for others". The actual encyclopedia work created by my RM request, as opposed to WP:DRAMA created by this WP:POINTy ANI filing, was our discovery that the the article was in fact terribly sourced and incorrect, which has inspired a round of investigation and improvement. But that sure does make me a bad guy, doesn't it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond a bit of a filibuster there, some points remain. Looking over your topic ban discussion, it seems like the spirit of it was that you attempted moves without discussion, the topic ban was to prevent disruption, and filing a technical move request involves asking for a move that does not typically involve discussion. You are still setting yourself up as the main initial judge of whether there should be a discussion or not. You think that's non-controversial (and that anyone who disagrees with how obviously good your actions are must be a bad actor here), but it looks like your topic ban is because the community thought you weren't great at deciding which moves should be done without discussions. You say your restrictions are may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth, but not page moves" Looking at the closing admin's advice here, it seems that the topic ban regards your behaviour and judgement more than whether any page move was a particularly controversial one. Filing a technical page move request seems a lot closer to a page move than it does to an initiation of discussion. I just think you're interpreting your topic ban so liberally that it could (not will) have no actual effect. I make no claim to know your motives and that's immaterial to whether there's potential for disruption. I can assume masses of good faith and still see that if you nominate page moves in a way that generally avoids discussion, based on your own self-assessment of when discussion is suitable, that other editors may become concerned and that you may cause avoidable drama. I didn't think any action needed to be taken, because I had assumed you would do what you could to avoid predictable drama in the future. Reading your replies, whew....you do seem fairly committed to the belief that you know when something deserves discussion and when it's absurd for anyone to question you. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be anything really wrong here. Yes, it can be argued that WP:RMTR is a way to evade scrutiny, but at the same time, contesting those edits costs 1 edit, and if someone actually wants to keep an eye on this ban, simply watching that page as opposed to watching N other pages sounds like a good idea to save time. (Much unlike this walls-of-text/innuendo discussion...) --Joy (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued uploading of untagged images and lack of communication by User:Angelo Trovato

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

This user has multiple warnings for uploading images without copyright information, stretching back to May this year and has failed to communicate with other editors. In early July, I tried to make him look at his talk page by deploying a script that displays a message box every time he makes an edit -- see User:Angelo Trovato/common.js. (There was an oversight on my behalf where said boxes do not show on the upload form). Despite this, the user has continued to edit and upload untagged images. This warrants some kind of block, but for how long? MER-C 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I placed a 48 hour block. Many images seem to fall within NFUR, but there are too many other problems to ignore. We need some assurance that the editor has understood the problem and plans to change.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I really in violation of something?

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

I just got a warning e-mail from a presently-blocked contentious user stating "I see you've re-inserted the text I redacted. Please review the BLP policy page. It applies to contentious material about living and recently deceased individuals. Please undo your re-insertion of the violating text, which is Original Research, Soapbox, BLP violation, and fyi is subject to the Arbcom discretionary sanctions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at ARBPIA."

What I had done was restore the rationale for a delete vote by User:Carolmooredc, which was innocuous and illustrated why she voted as she did. The Hannibal thing is mentioned several times in the deletion discussion. Such discussions are not subject to OR rules and/or sourcing as would the actual biographies be, she said nothing slanderous or demeaning, she was making an observation only.

My restoration of her text, by the way, is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHadar_Goldin&diff=619801823&oldid=619799329 I've tried to look up this ARBPIA thing, can't find it, and don't need to spend any more time on it.

Is this something I need to worry about or can I go to bed?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA is the page, fwiw.--Auric talk 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, there's nothing I can make out of that gordian knot, except that I didn't violate anything, and User:Carolmooredc didn't either. Thanks for the link and the confirmation, good night from Japan.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious BLP problem there. The comment has political overtones, obviously, but it doesn't actually say anything about the politics or beliefs of the article's subject; BLP isn't relevant to that aspect of the comment. Further, the comment (at least implicitly) expresses doubt about the notability of the individual at hand; while that type of discussion certainly can engage BLP, questions of notability are the bread and butter of AfD and the comment appears to be entirely in bounds. (Caveat: I have read neither the biographical article nor the rest of the AfD thread; I have only considered the contents of the comment at issue. I neither endorse nor reject its substantive content.)

Incidentally, presently-blocked users shouldn't be evading their blocks to edit Misplaced Pages pages—who was the blocked editor? If there are BLP issues that blocked users wish to bring up, they are free to use the appropriate channels: Misplaced Pages:Contact us - Readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's SPECIFICO, but he didn't edit Misplaced Pages pages to write me, he e-mailed me. Just it sounded like he is definitely not a reliable judge of what is or is not, *ahem* kosher on Misplaced Pages, so I wanted to put it to the admins if I stepped on someone's sacred cow. How's that for a mixed metaphor? Sleepy...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do anything at the direction of Specifico, which would be WP:BE. So no harm, no foul on anyones part. Specifico & Carolmooredc have a long history of less-than-cordial interaction. One starts editing in a subject area and the other follows. Sometimes these are new areas, sometimes old interests. (Both are topic banned from certain subjects.) You and the community just happened to be caught up in the affair. This thread had best be closed so that more editors are spared. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just a pattern of SPECIFICO Wikihounding of me going on for almost a year which I will have to deal with separately. It's perfectly ok to say that an individual may have been killed under the Hannibal Directive and that may be the only thing making his life and death notable, though I actually wasn't quite that explicit in my posting. But it's already in another article, which is why I voted delete; however, had someone else come along and said, "No, here's 14 WP:RS saying this is really important." I might have changed my opinion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here are some relevant refs since the NY Times ref I used in the two article it also was removed from Hadar Goldin and Hannibal Directive so more than enough to put back the material when I or someone else has a chance: Haaretz; Israel's I24news; IB Times; National Post. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time in next few days to deal with it but encouraging others to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SPA 107.199.168.97 longterm editwarring on various religion articles

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

Can an admin please block this guy long term? He has been edit warring for months now, especially on King James Only movement. Many many people, including myself as various IPs a few times, have reverted his unilateral removal of sourced relevant content. His rationale is "bias", despite the text not stating anything other than pure facts, and he also refuses to ever engage in any discussion, despite multiple attempts by others to do so. It is clear that he is nothing more than a single-agenda POV pusher and he should be blocked long term to prevent the continued unilateral and unjustified removal of sourced relevant material. 2600:1000:B012:216A:63D9:F760:42E3:F49A (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for half a fortnight. We normally don't block an IP that's not vandalising at the moment, lest it get reassigned to someone else, but this is quite obviously a stable IP. A long-term block really isn't appropriate for someone like this, who's only once before been blocked, but should he resume as soon as the half-fortnight is expired, we can go to a month-long block immediately. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange IP edits to Beyoncé (album)

Hello, me and a few other editors have been struggling with a substantial influx of IP edits on Beyoncé (album), where the genre field is being changed. A while back we reached a consensus to add Electro R&B and pop to the infobox, but another editor pointed out that the former isn't an actual standalone genre, so through edit summaries and the talk page, Alternative R&B replaced electro R&B as a better suit. Now these IP edits want the genre field to read as it once did previously, but are refusing to recognise that consensus has changed, and, most importantly, will not discuss their proposed change on the talk page, which is the best way to achieve a consensus to add/remove genres. I'm confused by the nature of the edits (which is why I am posting here) because I suspect they are all from the same person or the same group of people as these IP addresses haven't edited Misplaced Pages before, they all want the same thing (and relentlessly) and their edit summaries are very similar. I'm unsure whether to assert they I believe they are a sockpuppet or are masking/changing their IP, or whether these are synonymous? —JennKR | ☎ 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's likely all the same person, editing from a dynamic IP (their service provider assigns a new IP each time they access the Internet), possibly from a mobile device. It's not being done intentionally by the user. As this will make it difficult to communicate with the user, I will semi-protect the article for a few days to drive them to the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar Password Change Request

Hey, all, I'm an admin but I have no idea what this actually means. About 2 hours ago, I got the 'Someone (probably you, from IP address 75.84.49.129) requested a reset of your password for Misplaced Pages'. Headers show it's from Misplaced Pages, not spoofed or anything. The IP translates to a Roadrunner/rr.com address in Southern California.

I had not requested it, since I was asleep at the time, but I happened to wake about 10 minutes later. I changed my password nonetheless, and went about other things. About half an hour after that, I got another request, reading: Someone (probably you, from IP address 2605:E000:84C3:5500:FC15:732D:FF9:4FAD) requested a reset of your password for Misplaced Pages'. I can translate this out of Unicode, but it's all gibberish to me; symbols and a few CJK Ideographs. I'm not sure what's up, or whether it's something to be concerned about (I've never seen an IP masked like this before), and I'm not quite technical enough to hunt it down.

Anyone else getting these pwd change requests, or is this just an attempt on me? Can anyone get any usable info out of that code? And is the fact that the IP came through to me masked like that a cause for concern? --Thespian (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a friend gave me the clue that it was an IPv6 address, and surprise surprise, it traces to a rr.com/Time Warner cable modem (https://www.ultratools.com/tools/ipv6InfoResult?ipAddress=2605%3AE000%3A84C3%3A5500%3AFC15%3A732D%3AFF9%3A4FAD). --Thespian (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• The second IP isn't masked. it's an IPv6 address. ahh, nvm, you figured that out. It's probably someone trying to nab your account. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

that I figured out. though I'm not sure how they intend to do that from an pwd change request that comes to me. --Thespian (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You should probably change all your passwords just to be on the safe side.--v/r - TP 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I use LastPass and every single password I have is different. So I'm not worried about that; I've change the pwd already, but since it's happened 3 more times, I figure I'll stay logged in change it once an hour or so has gone by without a ping on that. Anyone know if blocking an IP makes them unable to request anon password changes? --Thespian (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I can really sympathize with a victim of intended identity theft, I'd like to help out. Email all your passwords and I'll change them for you. EEng (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude. This seems to be an attempt to get control of an admin account. I've never been sure why this sort of joke is considered funny, since it's insulting at the base with an assumption that you're talking to someone dumb.--Thespian (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you believe I really do want to gain control of his passwords, here in plain view of thousands of editors, it must be that I assume he (or she) is savvy enough not to do it. EEng (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

He stole mine. And as a result I've now become a mindless chattering moron sock. See, proves it! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Since your nick is not "I AM Luther John Matthews Patrick McDonald IV from Timbuktu" and in fact probably quite common it's easily possible it's someone misremembering their account name or that they had one. Also if you are worried about being targetted, I would concentrate on ensuring all emails you use are securr. They obviously don't have access to your Wikimedia account or know its password or wouldn't be trying a reset. (If they're smart they woul reset by email so would only try those they had access to but they may not be smart.) Of course the most likely thing if thry are targetting you is they want to causd needless panic. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(Needless panic such as, for example, public suggestions that someone "reset all your passwords just to be sure". Sigh.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, from someone whose dealt with this multiple times...

They pretty much try to log on as you, but instead of putting in a password click the 'forget' link on the logon screen in a silly attempt to 'hack' into your account. Since the password reset email goes right to the email you register with WP, it's always terribly ineffective and as far as I know, has never succeeded unless they have your email password, and they can never redirect the email their way otherwise. It's an 'attack' that's gone back for years for editors who have dealt with very obnoxious IP's. Unless every single password you have is simple like 'password', these IP's never succeed in doing anything more than annoying you for a few seconds in GMail.

It's good that you changed your password, but as for the other emails that come in, unless you did forget your password, you can safely ignore any new ones that come in, keep the password you have and just report the IP listed to ANI for attempting the 'password 'hack'' trick, which should allow them to get an admin-rendered timeout. Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Long term, slow edit warring via multiple IPs

A number of articles are undergoing a slow edit war. Apparently by one person using multiple IPs. The anon does not leave any edit summary other and does not seem to communicate. All articles are not reverted by all IPs, so this is likely more perverse than as presented here. Number after article is approx. number of reverts or edits which were reverted.

1. Baby Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 36+
2. Smile of a Child TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 34?
3. Little Bear (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2
4. Babar (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 6
5. Alvin and the Chipmunks (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 5
6. 20th Century Fox Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2
7. Color Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 6 The IP seems to be insisting that all were filmed in Technicolor even though RS shows one was filmed in Cinecolor
8. List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 30?
9. List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3+
10. The Electric Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3

IP addresses apparently involved in approximate reverse order. Active time and some edit counts

1. 2602:306:25a5:9ce9:1462:6db:edd3:f7fa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked August 2014 - 164 edits
2. 98.90.89.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked August 2014 - 131 edits
3. 98.90.89.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) July 2014 - 150 edits
4. 2602:306:25a5:82a9:705c:aae4:e0ee:c14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2014
5. 2602:306:25a5:82a9:d551:2797:332:1bd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2014
6. 2602:306:25a5:82a9:f02d:ff73:c2ed:6417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2014
7. 98.90.88.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2014
8. 2602:306:25a5:9999:889:b7ad:88a7:4f79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) April 2014
9. 2602:306:25a5:9999:d489:a526:40d4:e4dc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) April 2014
10. 2602:306:25a5:9999:9800:badb:9390:919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) April 2014
11. 2602:306:25a5:9999:45e:9b3c:b2a1:44e7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) April 2014

Some edits are rather strange such as this edit in coffee which simply added "Beans" at the end of a paragraph. Or this edit] on Flush toilet Simply added "July 2014" at the end of a paragraph.
It would seem that a number of articles should be semi-protected. As this has been going on at least since April, the question is for how long? Jim1138 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have assessed each article based on the level of disruption, how long it's been going on, and whether or not the article has been protected before.

IP 2602:306:25a5:9ce9:1462:6db:edd3:f7fa was blocked by User:Discospinster for 31 hours on August 4. This IP needs to be watched when the block wears off. The three IPs 98.90.89.30, 98.90.89.147, and 98.90.88.42 are all blocked. Additionally, I have covered 98.90.89.30 and 98.90.89.147 with a wee range block of 98.90.89.0/24 (up to 256 users would be blocked) as there does not seem to have anyone else editing from that range. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Good work Diannaa. I have added the three most-heavily contested articles to my watchlist. --John (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Me too, and I have added the IPv6 to my list of People Worth Watching. A combination of blocks and protection has worked well in the past on similar cases, so I am hopeful. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Faced verbal offensive abuse from the editor.

The User:Flaming Ferrari likes to revert edits without any reason. This editor consider himself superior in all terms. Check out his/her summary details of his/her talk page history. Moreover he/she constantly revert my edits without any logic or reason with respect to 'See also' section. Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone irrespective of experience and years spent editing wikipedia. Why I am being Abused, just for 'See Also' section? Is it fair? Should I quit editing?Elibrarysg (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a bad edit: WP:UP#CMT. No comment on the see also reverts, but at least on Denis Alexander it looks like Flaming Ferrari broke 3RR (the first removal is a revert of the July 2 addition). --NE2 23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some massive edit-warring across multiple articles going on here, and neither side is blameless. Flaming Ferrari should take a good long look at WP:3RR, which he indeed violated, and at WP:CIVIL for good measure. To his credit, he's the one who at least tried to launch talk page discussions. On the other hand, Elibrarysg and Drsharan should look up WP:NOTVANDALISM, and Elibrarysg should realize that 3RR applies to him, too; NE2 already commented on WP:TPO. Regarding the content, I've explained my own opinion at Talk: Devendra Prasad Gupta. Regarding the "verbal offensive abuse", I'd say Elibrarysg's edit summaries are no better than Flaming Ferrari's. Huon (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes sir, you are right my edit summaries are useless and meaningless as compared to 'f' being used by the editor who considers himself invincible may be in his/her own eyes. I hope 'You scratch my back I scratch yours' is not being followed here in this comment. Elibrarysg (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Flaming Ferrari was never notified of this thread. I will do so now. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for losing my cool with User:Elibrarysg but I grew tired of the user's constant reverts and adding of unhelpful content. The logic that we should include a see also section in the articles Devendra Prasad Gupta, Kenneth Dike, Denis Alexander, James Barrett (academic), Nancy Rothwell, in order to point user's to 3000+ word alumni lists in which the subjects only receive a passing mention seems flawed. By all means if the subject is a String Theorist, see also String Theory, but if the subject is from New Delhi, including New Delhi in the see also section would be extremely tenuous and lack relevance. User:Huon seems to agree: "I have removed the "See also" links to lists of alumni and "university people". WP:SEEALSO says: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Relevancy is debatable at best, and I really don't see how a comprehensive article on Gupta would incorporate such links. In fact, the only other non-navbox example of a link to List of King's College London alumni in a biographical article is another "See also" section added by User:Elibrarysg." The user has also been tampering with my talk page, in addition to a history image copyright violation on wikicommons related the aforementioned articles (see here), which made me less inclined to take his/her ostensibly good faith edits seriously.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag Team Work will suppress individual editing which might would have lead to consensus. Example, I Inserted 5 to 6 images on the page of List of King's College London alumni which was reverted/blanked by Flaming Ferrari firstly without any reason on 14:38, 3 August 2014, then I reverted his changes of blanking page. After that his/her editing summary says as follows (reinstate Archdeacon of Salford to list.... I removed the images of minor academic figures as these were not in keeping, but by all means add pictures of whoever you like. Perhaps a picture of every deceased MP would quickly bore readers too.). Ultimately on 4 August 2014 all of my upload images was deleted by User Krd on Commons without giving any notice for removal or justification of photos on Copyright Grounds. It might be possible I had some error in manual editing with respect to few images but not all of them. Now this is what we call here Tag Team or in other words 'Scratch theory'. Flaming Ferrari applies his personal opinion along with other editors sharing some personal interest or gains or mental satisfaction. That's why in practical terms as per my current experience we never use Misplaced Pages as a reference or even part of it in academic circles because it can be edited by anyone or in this case some invincible editors who prefer boredom/entertainment over information/encyclopedia. Carry on with your scratch theory. Elibrarysg (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that you have not provided proof that they have been released under the CC-0 licence. I see you have tagged the files as "OTRS sent", but I have searched for the emails, and none appear to have been sent. I strongly recommend you study copyright rules more closely. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalous/retaliatory speedy deletion tagging

Shortly after an article he'd created was deleted earlier tonight, User:Eminemdissesyou24 went on a vandalism spree, tagging a few dozen articles for A7 deletion without regard to their subject's actual notability or significance. He's done this before, though not on this scale. He does not provide appropriate edit summaries, nor does he notify article creators. This editor appeared about a month ago, and began editing using templates and otherwise indicating they weren't a new user. I don't see any reason to believe this user is here to edit constructively (particularly in light of the username), and support an indefinite block, but your mileage may vary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I noticed this when you removed the CSD from Shane Dollar which is on my watchlist. Eminemdissesyou24 seems to be on a bit of spree and needs to be stopped. - MrX 04:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. §FreeRangeFrog 04:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

And now, it appears, resuming vandalous speedy tagging as User:70.54.121.125, though not as actively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Nighthawks

The same situation as there: was nominated by the regular closer (me), and both of the secondary closers have voted on it; it's a fairly simple close - all supports and over the quorum. WP:FPC#Closing procedure contains what needs to be done, but if you think there are too many steps, than just do 1 & 7, and I make the rest. Armbrust 05:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Aside from the fact that this should be at WP:AN, and not ANI, don't you think we can wait and see if Julia or another user will close it? Pine also knows how to do so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(hopefully!) all  Done --Mdann52talk to me! 10:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Iranmanesh53

User:Iranmanesh53 has continuously been recreating a identical page with a different name each time. They were.

First article (by another user)

• Mahmoud fhazilat - deleted in AfD. Iranmanesh53 comments saying it is notable.

His recreations:

• Mahmoud fazilat - speedy deleted
• Fazilat - speedy deleted

What do you administrators think? -- Cheers NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While there have been the Speedy Deletion templates and there was the AFD discussion, there doesn't seem to have been any good attempt to discuss the issue with Iranmanesh53, so I've started one. I did my best to keep my language simple but I don't know if I'm very good at it. Hopefully this will be enough. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Sorry but where is this discussion you talk of? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I just checked the history of his/her talk page and they seem to have deleted your request for discussion. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For everyones info this user has: created a page that has been deleted (twice), been warned on his talk page, and now recreated another page which was deleted (which is a current speedy candidate). This has to warrant a block

and he recreates the Mohammad Pshtdar page as Pshtdar (speedy candidate) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed they removed my message (which they're of course entitled to do) and left a thank you note earlier. I assumed this meant they'd received all the help they need and would change their behaviour. I'm lazy and not sure if I can check since I'm not an admin but if they recreated these articles after I told them not to, this obviously isn't a good sign. In any case, I've given them a clearer warning they need to stop or be blocked. I don't really care if someone decides to block anyway, but if not I suggest they should be blocked if they recreate any articles again. It doesn't sound like they're listening. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User abusing PROD

User:AlanS is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 AlanS (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note further offensive language at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. AlanS (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. Number 57 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from WP:DEL-REASON) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Number 57 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for AlanS to use the {{Blpprod}} template instead of {{Prod}} when tagging such articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see WP:STICKY) —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the report, AlanS is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he absolutely does need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by Calathan, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, OZ, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may never become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Misplaced Pages's number one problem, right now. Really. Begoon  16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. David Aldus and Adewale Ayuba). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they are notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). Calathan (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. Calathan (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemantmalav88 spamming links to Patrika.com using it as a fake source for copyvio

I discovered that Hemantmalav88 (talk · contribs) had added copyvio to Rajasthan Patrika after I warned him before about it. I blocked him for 24 hours and then started to look at his other edits. What I found is a lot of copyvio from English language sources but cited to similar articles on patrika.com that don't necessarily contain the information in his edit. I'm inclined to indefinitely block for copyvio, COI spamming and using a source misleadingly. Needs a cleanup though. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find five instances of copy vio, that's enough to open up a CCI case. Please see the instructions at WP:CCI as to how to file a report. Due to the huge burden on the cleanup crew and the legal consequences of continued copy vio, we have been indef-blocking these editors. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up now, so no need for a CCI. And blocking indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Anniversary

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

Is it possible the users 112.208.42.204 and Zabbylicious are the same person? Because these revisions look similar. m'encarta (t) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal has been reported at WP:AIV. IP editing logged out was not block evasion since vandalism-only account was not blocked at the time, but Quack, quack. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - request for sanctions

Ryulong has a history of edit warring, with an extensive block log which has featured eight blocks within the past 12 months. The most recent of these was on 25 July for disruptive editing, and the last block specifically for edit warring was on 18 July 2014, for a period of 48 hours for this edit war

Blocks have varied in length between 24 hours and 2 weeks, the longest relating to an edit war with one editor which stretched to 90 reverts across several articles (for which I was the blocking administrator).

I and several other editors (some administrators) have worked tirelessly to try and persuade Ryulong to stop edit warring, but this doesn't appear to be working. I believe it is now necessary to place Ryulong under a group of editing restrictions, following his most recent edit warring episode, on 4-5 August at Ghost in the Shell .

I propose the following

• A blanket 1RR restriction - that is, to prevent Ryulong from making more than 1 revert per page in a 24 hour period - this restriction would apply across all namespaces, with the exception of his own talk page user space (user page, talk page, drafts under his user space etc).
• An interaction ban between himself and Lucia Black.
• Article probation - Ryulong may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that he is causing disruption. This restriction would also apply across all namespaces.

Feedback, comments, requests for supplementary diffs/evidence are welcome, as ever. Nick (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the incident in question, I would say the problem was Lucia Black failing to respect BRD. Ryulong was perfectly entitled to revert her changes if they did not have consensus. Number 57 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Without commenting on the respective merits of the proposed sanctions, the "1RR" one should be subject to the usual exemptions, including at least his entire userspace and not just his talk page. It should also clarify whether it is "1 revert per 24 hours per page" or 1 revert across the entire project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Please give this careful consideration before acting. Ryulong works in an area of the project that is extensively vandalized. In fact, I believe one of the blocks mentioned by Nick for edit warring was overturned because he was reverting vandalism. He's constantly removing POV, badly sourced or non sourced material, and a lot of just plain silliness. Is he prickly doing it? Yes, but I think that it's only natural given the amount of grief he deals with in keeping the areas he patrols up to wikistandards. If these sanctions are (unwisely) enacted then you had better line up someone to take his place or you will very quickly see degradation in those areas. Here's a counter idea, just simply ask that he tone it down some. 209.197.26.68 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The block you're thinking about was overturned so he could deal with some sockpuppetry issues, but that wasn't why he was blocked. Very little of the trouble Ryulong gets himself into and has been blocked for is related to dealing with removal of POV, bad sources or unsourced material. Today, for example, sees Ryulong edit warring with an established editor over their preferred layout for an article. Do you know how often I and other administrators have told Ryulong to tone it down some ? If there was the faintest chance left I thought that would work, I wouldn't be here, looking for an alternative to blocking Ryulong again and again and again, until it's an indefinite block and everybody is sick to the back teeth of his behaviour. Nick (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, I'm reluctant to see 'any' colleague of mine have restrictions placed on themselves, even if it might be in their best interests. AFAIK, Ryulong doesn't vandalize articles & so shouldn't be restricted. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support All - That block log says it all. He's one of a handful of editors that do great work, but need to stop bothering the community with their inability or unwillingness to get along with others or play nice. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. How on earth is that content-forking spat still going? I thought it'd been settled 18 months ago. --erachima talk 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, I take a long wikibreak and things change. Ryulong was an admin back when I was a new admin and he was a good one. I am very surprised by his block log. Sadly I support 1RR(with usual exemptions, specifically talk page ones) but oppose interaction or topic ban. It seems both problems the iban or tban would solve are obviated by 1RR. Chillum 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The last two blocks were both reversed. So, are there ongoing problems? Howunusual (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At least one of those unblocks was no indication that he was not edit warring. There was a ridiculous edit war over a section heading on an article talk page that resulted in Ryulong and another person being blocked. It was an ongoing problem and very recent. The block was 100% correct. The unblocking admin did not discuss the block with the blocking admin and the reasons given for the unblock were confused and dubious at best. Chillum 18:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any community sanctions on Ryulong. It is true that Ryulong is the subject of too many quarrels that are brought to these boards. That is largely because Ryulong edits in areas where there are too many quarrels about the encyclopedia. It would be deeply unfortunate if the “community” were to sanction Ryulong for involvement in contentious areas of editing, where Ryulong is usually on the side of neutrality, the removal of POV, and the improvement of the encyclopedia, without sanctioning the other editors (some of them vandals and sockpuppets). That would reward editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Also, for an editor whose positive and negative history goes back as far as Ryulong’s does, the noticeboards do not fully consider his contributions for better and worse. They will only decide whether the pro-Ryulong entourage or the anti-Ryulong entourage is noisier. Instead, any issues about Ryulong’s long-term editorial behavior deserve a full evidentiary hearing. Send to ArbCom. ArbCom, with all of its limitations and delays, is a more judicial and judicious forum than these noticeboards, and an inquiry into Ryulong (and his critics) should be judicious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. If there's a complex, long-term problem a RfC/U should be the next step. ANI is really not the place to hash out things this complex. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment to those recommending RFC/U-ArbCom - Please make sure you are aware of the existing RfC/U which led to the existing ArbCom case which led to desysopping. These are quite old and renewed inquiry may be warranted, but I think it is important to keep the existing history in mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A RfC/U from seven years ago is informative but not dispositive. Same for the ancient ArbCom case. This is a matter so complex and involved that it cannot be dealt with in the summary manner that ANI dispute resolution works. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why me trying to say that the status quo of an article where someone else made a bold change and I'm not the only one who disagrees with he change (another editor appeared on the talk page who agrees, I think) means I should be subject to anything. Nick has had it out for me for a while, at least whenever I've gone to IRC requesting some sort of help for something. And I'm not doing another god damn arbitration case. I don't want to sit through months of character assassination, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - I'm interested to know why you think I've had it in for you for a while ? I wonder if it correlates to your decreasing standards of behaviour and self restraint ? You worked largely trouble free (and certainly block free) for several years, then you got into the biggest edit war I've seen in 9 years, where there were a hundred reverts across several articles, where you and the other editor broke 9RR more than once. It's been downhill every month since, eight blocks since December, with you edit warring across numerous articles, blanket reverting good faith edits because reverting them with a correct edit summary was too much trouble, being disruptive across various articles and talk pages (GITS is a perfect example of this) and generally becoming increasingly hostile and combative. I don't particularly want to request Arbitration, I really want you to revert to how you were last year or the year before, giving little or no cause for concern. If you don't want to do that, I will, as suggested above, file an Arbitration case, but it's nothing like my preferred option. Nick (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

in the case you're referring to, wasn't the other party ultimately banned for their behavior that I initially was reverting? Or was that someone else? Because I'm fairly certain you're referring to where I was reverting an editor whose name I can't remember right now who was making hundreds of crap "X in fiction" or "fictional Y" articles after being told to stop multiple times and who I had brought to ANI to get a wider view. But I digress. It is true that I've been involved in way too many petty arguments but as noted by Number 57 above, it is almost always a case of people not respecting BRD. I will do my best to work on curbing my behavior further. I just don't want to end up punished, as usual, for trying to respect BRD and coming across others who refuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I was confusing the category guy with the person who added all the financial and academic results to the NCAA pages. IIRC, there was a consensus supporting my edits prior to having discovered that mess. But in retrospect it was wrong for me to have gotten so involved.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If anyone has evidence of Ryulong damaging articles or driving away useful editors, please start a new section without all the baggage about the past. Does anyone have a proposal that would help these articles withstand enthusiasts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Johnuniq sums things up perfectly. Ya know I these things make me miss WQA - yes it only occasionally solved anything but there are way too many threads opened here because editors refuse to go the RFC/U route that they should be taking. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In this particular circumstance, the BRD isn't the only issue. Ryulong believes he can revert other edits and make edits related to the article after and not question them himself. So there is definitely WP:OWN tendencies because even though he uses the claim of "status quo", he wont apply it to himself. In the past, i would abide BRD rule with Ryulong, so long as we had a discussion and attempt to reach consensus. However, Ryulong would not continue the discussion any further as shown here and here. So as you can see, Ryulong is quick to dropping discussions, but still wants his "status quo" to be kept.

In this most recent situation the dispute is formatting, but for the right reasons? It looks like Ryulong is quick to change his decision when it comes to the formatting simply because he wanted to keep one subtle differences (that the original video game spin-off of the manga get its own section). In these rendition: shown here and here You can see that Ryulong supported the idea that not all media is relevant and deserve their own section, and he has moved the video games based on SAC series onto the more relevant section, while keeping the original video game apart. Unknowing that the original video game is just as much a spin-off belong to the manga, as the SAC video game spin-offs to the original SAC media. So now as the discussion is going , Ryulong is now slowly but surely trying to go back to the rendition he originally was against shown here. And this only began because he wanted the original video game have its own section, not because this is the best way to organize the article. Even further points, he was using this situation to prove to merge the manga back shown here.

I'm not here to gain consensus (here in the ANI), but i am here to show that there is a more subtler destructive behavior. he is very quick to go back on his original rendition on a whim and his more controversial edits happen in GITS-related article over less-than-impressive reasons and he is not willing to compromise over the more subtle (but significant) changes. And in the past when "BRD" is mentioned, he would often stop discussing. And i'm sure the same occurs elsewhere whether we notice or not. I'm not making a vote, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinions on how these handful of articles should be set up has no basis in whether or not I should be under 1RR restrictions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are, but i definitely disagree you can go scot-free. Afterall, this isn't about opinion, its about how much you're willing to alter the article not to enhance the article, but for personal preference. Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, no basis for sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1RR. The trouble Ryulong has, I think, stems from the fact that he tends to treat reverting as the only tool available to him. Someone socking? Revert. Someone still socking? Revert again. Someone still socking? Keep reverting, no time for SPI. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Keep reverting. Content dispute? Revert. Discussing content dispute? Keep reverting while discussing. Getting problematic behavior dealt with administratively or via the community either doesn't occur to occur to him, or occurs to him so far down the line that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket before he gets around to it. I've discussed this with him before, and at the time he agreed that he needed to stop clinging to the stick and start reaching out for help when this stuff happened, but I haven't really seen that reflected in his behavior.

  I'm not interested in "sanctions" on him, per se. Ryulong's heart is in the right place, and as often as not at the bottom of the edit war is something reasonable. But the "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" use of reversion needs to stop, and I think a 1RR would be a good guidepost there for him, and act as a reminder that when reverting doesn't work, trying something else is a more reasonable route forward. If the sanction doesn't pass, as seems likely looking at this discussion, I would still urge Ryulong to please, please stop treating reversion as your only option. There are community noticeboards aplenty around for you to report things to; you don't have to handle it all singlehandedly with the "undo" button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter: Ryulong actually has been calling on admin action and the assistance of other editors in more recent difficult situations.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: (I’m not here to sit in judgment) Ryulong and I have certainly had our battles, but truth be told, I was kind of looking for a fight. Based on my more recent interactions with him, however, I’ve come to respect his ability to sense when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is especially important on BLPs where a little aggressive reverting of poorly sourced insertions is called for. This is not to diminish the anger and frustration other editors have experienced, but there may be more effective ways of addressing it.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

please add the needful to ebola page

need help w ramble men — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't Talk:Ebola, and there's no need to list the victims. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Admins, looking into this, we've got a conspiracy theorist of questionable use to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What are "teat results"? --NE2 05:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page misuse by blocked User:COD T 3

Please look at the behavior of User:COD T 3, who is currently blocked but will come off block shortly. As prologue, there was a dispute at Blue Army (Poland), which had two RFCs. I non-admin closed the RFCs (having had no prior involvement). COD T 3 then asked me to change the wording of my close. I declined and suggested closure review. At this point he and User: Faustian resumed an old edit war (that had been reasonably been on hold during the RFCs). COD T 3 was blocked for 48 hours. He maintains that this block was unfair. (I would have blocked them both, but I am not an admin.) At the same time, I reported the edit warring to WP:AE under WP:ARBEE. There is discussion of a topic-ban or WP:1RR for one or both edit warriors. What then happened is, first, that COD T 3 requested, on his talk page, that I help him with another RFC, on the reliability of a source. I declined. COD T 3 then replied with personal attacks, calling me a “coward”. Also, COD T 3 replied at WP:AE using a sockpuppet, User:COD T 3 Last Statement, which has been indeffed as a sockpuppet.

Diffs of attacks follow:

17:29 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619984412&oldid=619982766

20:18 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619984412&oldid=619982766

I request that COD T 3 (the sockmaster) be indeffed for sock-puppetry, and that talk page access be revoked as being used other than for unblock requests (both for an RFC request, not in itself disruptive but not permitted, and for personal attacks).

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange KEEP postings at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laura McCullough

Dear editors: Should this sudden pattern of KEEP !votes by new accounts be looked into? If so, should I notify all of the editors plus the creator of the page under discussion? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They're SPA accounts. Strike the !votes that don't have any obvious merit and move on - or if you want to link them all you can file a request here though it's not really worth it. Dusti 00:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong isn't the closer for the AFD, so that it isn't she who should strike or ignore the votes. The AFD is still running. A comment in the AFD for benefit of the closer might be appropriate.

Anne: If you added some references to the article, thank you. I would say that you, as another !voter, don't need to worry too much about the strange KEEP postings. Thank you for calling them to the attention of a larger segment of the community. It does appear to be an effort to recast a notability issue as a gender issue, and there is an issue of conflict of interest with the subject as one of the authors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In her tirade on the Help page, she threatened that she might post "all over Facebook about what I believe is a gender based attack". Presumably those are her fans responding to some off-WP message she's delivered. Deor (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added {{Not a ballot}} the the AfD in the case she is attempting to rally support off-wiki to keep the article. —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your replies. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been canvassed from Facebook (although at least one canvassed voter had actually !voted "delete"....... )--Mdann52talk to me! 07:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• If they're fan votes at all, they're surely unlikely to be from more than one fan, in view of the same unusual formatting of the word "Keep" by all four of them: caps followed by double hyphens. Unless they were following one template which had been suggested to them. (I was trying to pass it by a CU last night on the admins' IRC channel, but man, that place is dead these days.) I've notified User:Lmccullough of this thread, which is surely something that should be done. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Modanlou2014 is a racist troll

Please indef-block this user: His racist edit --188.158.119.202 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Dougweller: I would be inclined to block, in particular because it appears they gamed autoconfirmed to allow them to bypass protection, but as another admin choose to only warn them, I want to get Dougweller's input before proceeding. (Or alternatively, get a bit of support here for a block if they aren't available)Monty₈₄₅ 00:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, the "edits" to Qazvin Province for getting autoconfirmed are priceless, note especially the timestamps. Go ahead and block. Bishonen | talk 08:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Kinu beat me to it. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. I revoked talk page access preemptively; perhaps I'm just that jaded, but I didn't expect any sort of useful commentary from this user in an unblock request. --Kinu /_c 08:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Long standing editorial POV issues at Historicity of Jesus

This request for support follows on the recommendation of DRN coordinator User:MrScorch6200 to seek ANI assistance as noted in his findings here, and following from previous Talk Discussion, and Request for Review. Content mediation has been request as per DRN recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Historicity of Jesus. This request is for conduct investigation and mediation/arbitration as per DRN recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Historicity of Jesus.

The long term pattern of actions and behaviours by a set of editors, as found and in archived Talk pages going back several months, gives the appearance that there is a long-term campaign of collusion to develop and maintain a distinct and narrow POV. In short, a vocal sub-set of editors conducts the following:

1. Editwaring
2. Pettifogging
3. Biting newbies
4. Personal attacks
5. Inappropriate consensus
6. Spurious polling
7. System gaming
8. Conflict of Interest
9. Assumption of bad faith

and the skilled use of rhetoric, obfuscation and intentional distortions to discourage, and drive away new editors and recommended edits, or to confound and dis-empower consistently engaged editors striving to bring balance to the article.

Please advise on next steps and process to find some sort of peaceful, reasonable and inclusive solution. --IseeEwe (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A similar topic came up when Jesus was featured on the front page, or nominated for it, I think. I actually took a class in college which examined this subject somewhat. I can assure you, no college-level class studying this would have a syllabus as Christian-centered as Misplaced Pages's sources. However, to be fair, the main subject I remember from college was the resemblance of any likely historical figure to modern conceptions, rather than existence in itself. The basic idea was the the modern conception of Jesus shouldn't be considered to have existed. It then gets into how one defines Jesus..... I remember my professor asking if we thought a time-machine would settle the question of whether Jesus existed, and the general consensus of our class was that it wouldn't. Howunusual (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you Howunusual. I believe that you are close to the root of my concern. I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Your advice on next steps would be highly appreciated. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That's funny: As an interested lay observer of the Jesus historicity debate, I have come to exactly the same conclusion, which I submit as evidence that I understand the underlying problem quite well even as an outsider. The problem, namely, that there is no certainty about virtually anything regarding Jesus, not even if Jesus was based on a single person, or multiple people, and in what way, and even what most mainstream scholars consider relatively certain about Jesus is so generic it is not really helpful, even if we could travel back to the relevant time and place and look around for historical people who could have been the basis for Jesus. That's the heart of the issue. To adapt two classic quips: "Would the real historical Jesus please stand up?" and "Who was Jesus, and if yes, how many?" Many scholars appear to be rather agnostic now, even if they are hesitant to admit so in public. I have even encountered the suggestion that the Jesus figure was based on an indefinite number of people, a generic type just like a cop character in some Hollywood film might be based on many policemen that the scriptwriters have encountered in their life. Jesus-type characters were dime a dozen at the time and in the region. That's what most people do not realise, and that's why most people are puzzled that the historicity of Jesus should even be a problem in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Please advise on next steps. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See User:BruceGrubb/CMT Material/FAQ, question 3, for what I believe to be a very fair and unbiased representation of the spectrum.

Just a remark: 100% acceptance of the full biblical story (maximalism or literalism) means acceptance of virgin birth, all miracles, etc., and amounts to creationism. Don't forget that even in the New Testament, there are assertions that squarely contradict science, such as when Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms in the world from a very high mountain (which implies a flat Earth), which are therefore best interpreted in a metaphorical way. Frankly, I doubt that maximalism is a position that has any appreciable support in serious academia, even among devout Christian scholars.

The current mainstream is probably best represented by scholars like Bart Ehrman, whose position is sharply differentiated from both maximalism and minimalism, let alone mythicism. However, Richard Carrier has just published a challenge of the historicist position, arguing that the evidence in its favour has been misrepresented and is really quite insufficient, while various considerations point rather in a quite different direction. Personally, I have leant towards mythicism for a long time, find Carrier's arguments persuasive and tend to agree with his conclusions, and I believe it will be increasingly difficult to ignore his arguments given that they often seem to be quite accepted already by the likes of Ehrman – only the conclusion is not. My impression is that the consensus in the field is unstable and while outright mythicism may remain fringe for the time being, minimalist or agnostic positions will become more accepted. This is a difficult situation. Editors sceptical of the historicist consensus will anticipate this development eagerly and push for a greater representation of less-than-historicist positions especially. However, even though I share their bias, I think it is too early to start to increase Misplaced Pages's coverage of these positions significantly, as per WP:CRYSTAL Misplaced Pages should absolutely not "lead the way" and anticipate coming developments. We must remain conservative. Therefore, despite my sympathies for mythicism, I would admonish the historicism sceptics to hold their horses and keep patiently observing the developments in the field. There's no reason to rush things. Moderate historicism may have feet of clay, but it is still top dog for the time being.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and not a substitute for blogs where editors can advertise their opinions, argue and debate them. Nor does the academic dialogue take place here. It is wiser to confide in the strength of the arguments against historicism and rest assured that they will eventually prevail. This is also what I am sure Carrier, Doherty et al. would advise were they asked. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The next steps would be naming specific editors instead of "a vocal sub-set of editors", notifying them of the thread, and pointing out specific concerns supported by diffs. Explaining how this is an appropriate attitude would be a nice bonus. Personally I think that someone whose reply to being found to have misrepresented sources is "I will not debate sources with you" is unfit to edit Misplaced Pages. Huon (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop your continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IseeEwe, once again, you make accusations without providing evidence. You added material that included a dozen citations that don't actually mention the article's topic, several that are misrepresented, and a few that were outright polemics, all to give equal validity (if not more) to what the article's sources generally indicate to be a minority (if not WP:FRINGE view). You were reverted five times by three different editors in the past two days, and you'v responded all but the last time by reverting once time has passed ( , , , including a hypocritical accusation on edit warring from the first time an editor reverted you). You have:

• hypocritically accused anyone who shows the slightest disagreement of being part of some sort of POV pushing cabal while expecting good faith in turm, as if it means a free pass to add whatever to the article
• make unevidenced accusations that I've been attacking people for "the last 6 months (at least)" when I've barely been at that page for four months,
• responded to evidence that you've engaged in POV-pushing OR by outright insulting my intelligence ("Whatever. I accept that you are unable to understand 21st century approaches to critical theory -as dumbed down as I wrote them.")

You are only tendentious. You had a slight point in that, while everyone was wondering if you were a sock puppet (not that that's gone away), I did not leave you a message asking you not to make the exact sort of edits that most people on the talk page were saying not to make, even though your behavior gives no reason to believe it'd've made a difference, especially with you indicating you are familiar that those conversations occured -- for which I did apologize even though I'm convinced you're of no use to articles on religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter -if you persist in harping and attacking. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop the continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. As per the note on the talk page I have suggest a solution to you, , and believe that mediation and cooperation will help us move down that road. I am here seeking mediation, not to exclude, but to include, not to punish, but to calm. There is no evil intention here. Please consider. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The next step is that I have blocked you for two weeks for personal attacks, disruptive editing and edit warring at Historicity of Jesus, User:IseeEwe. This post, cited by several users above, is little short of amazing, and there are more examples in User:Ian.thomson's post above. I realize you are a new user (assuming that the sock concerns are unfounded), but this amount of assuming bad faith is not to be tolerated here. I'd have placed a considerably longer block if you'd been here longer. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention

See here , and the edit summary for the following post. It appears that User:Jim-Siduri has taken it upon himself to issue a press release on behalf of a non-existent 'Misplaced Pages Reform/Civility Movement', giving the URL for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force as a 'mirror', and consequently implying that this is some sort of official project. I'm at a loss as to what exactly he is trying to achieve, but whatever it is, I can't help feeling that it is an abuse of Misplaced Pages facilities to be doing it. It should be noted that this isn't the first time that Jim-Siduri has invented fictitious Misplaced Pages projects, and that he has repeatedly been told to learn how Misplaced Pages works before embarking on ambitious projects to 'reform' it. Given this latest episode, I suspect that it may finally be time to show him the door... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For now I've collapsed the section, in case he actually sends it and someone actually comes to the page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that he edited the press release to read 'submitted', and given the edit summary "Fly fly little bird, make our dreams a reality...)", it seems reasonable to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that it has been submitted somewhere or other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears already to have been distributed but embargoed until about 45 minutes from now. If this is not legitimate, he needs to withdraw it immediately. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blanked the section. The material posted by Jim-Siduri was a misrepresentation as to what the off-wiki project "is" and it contained WP:TPNO personal details about another person. Also, had WP:ELNO problems. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editions of IP-hopper

81.193.33.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Persistent WP:Disruptive editing, perhaps WP:Vandalism as well, and certainly WP:Edit warringSeveral of his IPs were recently blocked, he created an account as CoUser1 (talk · contribs) (also blocked) as you can see here and here. Although, he still IP-hoping, avoiding the temporary blocking imposed. Warnings were left in his previous IP talkpages (85.243.159.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was the latest before the actual), which he abandoned after 3rd warning, and started to user the actual IP adress.

In the past made several disruptive editions on pages now protected. For the moment he is editing List of Portuguese football champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Taça de Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (which I've made a request for page protections). Rpo.castro (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Those vandal IPs are too far apart to be rangeblocked, unfortunately. I don't really like to semi articles like these two, as it would shut out too many good-faith IPs. I've tried Pending changes for three months on both, hope it helps. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Seems to be quite reasonable. Let's see. I will just revert the editions for the version before the IP changes/war.

PS: by mistake I've asked for one of the articles indefinite semi-protection instead of temp semi protection. Best RegardsRpo.castro (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

He keeps removing the content at Taça de Portugal, apparently hasn't cottoned onto the pending changes having been applied. If it were me, just block the current IP and see if he stops. BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

He changes the IP every time he is blocked. Created an registered account also. Extened it's behavior to Portuguese football league system (an old target) and Campeonato de Portugal‎ also.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

<rm accusations of vandalism and dumbassery>

Per that comment, and sundry other accusations of vandalism and dumbassery, recommend/request semi-protection of pages concerned (and perhaps this board, for the sock-puppetry) and blocking the current IP. BethNaught (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed the unsigned comments per WP:DENY. Just revert and ignore. I really don't have much faith in blocking these IPs — just as you say, the person will simply change IP — but I've blocked 85.245.57.166, as a, well, gesture. Probably more to the point, I've semi'd the redirect Campeonato de Portugal, (there's not much reason for good-faith IP's to be editing that) and pending-change protected Portuguese football league system. I realize it's irritating to see the IP's continue to attempt to vandalize the articles despite the PC protection, but it won't be accepted, and won't reach our readers. Rpo.castro, do you mean another registered account has been editing disruptively, besides CoUser1? Because s/he seems to have learned a lesson from their recent block. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC). P.S. I've semiprotected this board for a few hours. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen the user I've mention was CoUser1. Since the blocking s/he is almost inactive. About, the PC protection seams to be working, since now are a few users looking at the article, so the IP changes don't stick. Rpo.castro (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

PS171 and disregard for consensus

This has been an ongoing issue for several months now, and I have no idea what else to do at this point, so I come here. This is my first report at AN/I, so please forgive me if it is unnecessarily detailed; I'm honestly not sure where to cut off the information, as I believe all of it is relevant.

PS171 primarily edits the Misplaced Pages page of Leonardo DiCaprio, which is where our disagreements began. The user's first edit, as far as I can tell, was in December 2013 when he/she changed the picture from a recent (but admittedly bad) photo of DiCaprio at a Wolf of Wall Street premiere to one of him at a Shutter Island premiere. Nothing wrong with this at the time, no one really argued that the older image was better. I changed it back to the Wolf image without really thinking it through, and was reverted without an edit summary by PS171. I didn't really think anything of it, and let it go. Then, in early February, Muboshgu changed it to an alternate photo from the same premiere, which was again reverted, again without an edit summary, by PS171. Despite this behaviour, it didn't really become an issue until May, when I added a high-quality photo of DiCaprio from the London premiere of Wolf.

I added a photo of him from January 2014 in this edit, dated May 3, 2014. This change was reverted by PS171, again without an editor summary, a little over a week later. Due to the lack of edit summary, I reverted with the edit summary "Inexplicable and unexplained removal of higher quality, more recent, better picture." I was met with another revert, but with a well thought out edit summary: "I think the quality of this picture is good, besides, it refers the reader right at the beginning of the article to a movie that is more representative of DiCaprio's work (he's not a comedy actor)". At this point I'm still assuming good faith, guessing that the editor is unaware that the relevance to a person's career does not necessarily define what should and shouldn't be included (DiCaprio is still in his prime, so any photo from this period is acceptable). I reverted again, saying "That does not make a difference at all. If a recent, higher quality image exists, there is no reason not to add it. Suspense/horror isn't his usual work either." I get reverted again, with PS171 citing DiCaprio's alleged "strange, forced smile on pic" and that he/she "wouldn't call it the same quality." I stopped reverting to avoid violating WP:3RR, but MrX reverted sourcing technical reasons the photo was better ("Less cropped, better exposure and color, and more current.") PS171 reverted again (now in violation of 3RR) stating simply "well, we don't agree then". He/she was reverted yet again by ForteSP33, agreeing that the "Newer Photo is better."

I, Corvoe at the time, posted to PS171's talk page (a discussion that has recently been deleted) and we discussed our disagreement at length. In a bit of a side note, at one point during this discussion, I compared the new DiCaprio photo to the one for Angelina Jolie, a Featured Article: the photo was almost immediately changed by PS171, sourcing "shock value" (a statement that would appear several times later). Our discussion started going in circles with neither of us agreeing, so I opened a discussion on the talk page which ended in a consensus to change to the new image. PS171 did not remove the image, but removed the reference to Wolf from the caption stating "the lead image guideline still applies here." This is a recurring statement from PS171. I reverted this, unable to find anything that backed up PS171's claims. I was again reverted with the rationale that "the movie does not represent the subject fairly and this is the lead, so we swap the images as I suggested or shorten the caption..." So, again, I went to the talk page. PS171 repeatedly accused me of not acting "in spirit", a claim which was never explained over the duration of the discussion. Lady Lotus sourced WP:CAPTION as a reason to include the premiere mention, to which PS171 said "We could mention Titanic, Inception, The Departed, The Aviator etc. twice in the lead, but if you try to act according to WP:Leadimage, you won't mention this mess of a comedy TWICE in the lead. Or rather use the other image instead." At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Erik joined the discussion, but was relatively neutral in the matter, stating that he "would even be fine with keeping it simple with "DiCaprio in January 2014" because we do not have to be explanatory with the lead image", and PS171 agreed with him. I expressed my confusion as to what I had done wrong in regards to WP:LEADIMAGE, and was again told that I was "going clearly against its spirit by mentioning a comedy twice in the lead of an article about a DRAMA actor" before he/she references a passage from LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred". At this point, some editors were confused as to what PS171 meant by shock value. Lady Lotus asked what PS171 meant by this, to which she received no answer. I posted one more reply, and since the conversation ended with most editors supporting the mention of the film's premiere, I added it back.

Then, in July, PS171 came back and changed the caption again, back to not including an edit summary. I posted on his/her talk page once more, strongly suggesting that the editor restart the discussion on the article's talk page. I reverted yet again, sourcing the talk page discussion. The edits died down for a few weeks, before, this morning (August 6), PS171 reduced the caption again. MrX reverted the edits, noting the lack of consensus.

PS171 has worked exclusively on Leonardo DiCaprio's article since December 2013, and almost all of his/her edits have been restoring to the preferred version; whether it be content that was agreed to be deleted, the image change, or the image caption, this editor has done nothing but argue against consensus and change back to the version he/she likes. I don't believe this editor is able to collaborate with others, so I am reporting PS171 here. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of ignoring consensus and slowly edit warring. I would recommend a final warning, followed by escalating blocks if this conduct continues. I think it's telling that PS171 blanked most of their talk page moments before making the edit to Leonardo DiCaprio.- MrX 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is your recent opinion on how the lead should look like. Probably you forgot this edit of yours? Read my comment below before again rushing your judgment. PS171 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sock when the majority of PS171's points were just I don't like it. He wouldn't answer questions, he just kept repeating "least shock value" when no one knew what he meant by that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You found my arguments strange, because you STILL haven't read WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. And I had to build concensus with editors who didn't even bother to read the rules... PS171 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The last major argument on the talk page is this:

You can make light of this, but this is the lead of the article. I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception, and we could still add a short description of movies like The Departed or Shutter Island... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy. PS171 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever countered this argument with anything and we finished the discussion.
If we do add the comedy twice, we could write a whole novel on Titanic, which is still the second highest grossing movie all time and was the highest grossing movie at the time.
Feel free to read the relevant discussion and draw your own conclusions about the "concensus" that you find there.
80% of the comment of admin-wannabe User:Corvoe details the image issue above which has been dealt with long ago just to throw mud on me, but he's doing only everything to hide the real issue here: Finding the right proportions in the lead of the article. This is a drama actor to whom we can thank movies like Titanic, Inception, Shutter Island etc. and all he and User:Lady Lotus are trying to do is overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article. PS171 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, stop calling me an admin-wannabe. I'm not rushing to judgment, I've been debating on whether or not this was worthwhile for some time now. When I saw you'd reverted again, I figured that was the last straw. I don't care about the content of the lead, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. What this comment is about is that you keep undoing others' edits with no justification. The current issue is that, despite constantly being reverted and disagreed with, you reinstate and reinstate your version, over and over.

Also, what are you talking about? The last major point was talking about what shock value you meant. You were the only one discussing the content of the lead, while the discussion was supposed to be focused on the image and the caption. If you want to discuss the lead, go ahead. I actually support some of your edits (including the one you tried you use as "evidence" that I'm being contradictory when it's completely unrelated), but that's neither here nor there. I was simply pointing out that you had edited without consensus.

This has gone on long enough. The image changing issue, you ceased. I will give you that. It doesn't change the fact that you are still edit warring by changing the caption we all agreed on. Erik was neutral on the matter, and suggested a theoretical option, while myself, Lady Lotus, and MrX were in favour of the current caption. 3-1-1 does not mean you just change it. We would need to have another discussion, maybe involve more editors, and that's just unnecessary.

To sum up all that, the issue is that you keep changing the caption without discussing it or talking to anyone. What you need to do is stop. WP:BRD would be good reading; you were bold, we reverted, we've discussed, and we reached consensus. That's it. Either leave it be, or start another discussion. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gcveintee disruptive editing

Gcveintee has a history of adding unreferenced material and changing information in articles without any references. This person has taken to logging in and out of their account to avoid amassing warnings (see this series of IP edits and then these exact same edits by Gcveintee) The IP address (83.45.202.130) has made an incredible amount of edits changing height and weight and adding unreferenced content to a large volume of articles. If someone with more knowledge than me could look some of these over it would be much appreciated. Helpsome (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hrs for vandalism. In the future reports such as this can go to the specialized noticeboard at WP:AIV. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You blocked the IP but not the user account which this person was alternately using. Will they be able to keep using Gcveintee to make disruptive edits? Helpsome (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor has logged into Gcveintee and continues editing. Helpsome (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editions of User

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rpo.castro - Persistent WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism as well, and certainly WP:Edit warring.

In the past made several disruptive editions on pages now protected. For the moment he is editing List of Portuguese football champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Taça de Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He extened it's behavior to Portuguese football league system (an old target) and Campeonato de Portugal‎ also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.57.166 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Not only does this report appear to be retaliatory for a thread opened against the IP above, but it's the IP's second or third attempt to create one—and he's deleted at least one of the prior threads. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's he who started retaliating. I deleted at least one of the prior threads? LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.57.166 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editions of User

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

http://pt.wikipedia.org/Usu%C3%A1rio:Teles - Persistent WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism as well, and certainly WP:Edit warring. This user keeps reverting my revisions which are telling the truth unlike his and protects the pages so no one can edit them! He's not even portuguese, he's brazilian, and he doesn't know more of our competitions than me! He is changing the words for the competitions we use in Portugal to those they use in Brazil, which goes against the rule. It's looks like if you are brazilian and administrator or something like that you can do whatever you like because if some portuguese tries to change a brazilian portuguese word to a european portuguese one it's revisons are reverted because of that rule! There are many pages related to Portugal which are writen in brazilian portuguese and not in european portuguese and if you try to change them they may not only be reverted but also be protected if you insist on reverting them so no one can edit (like this user)! They will also block you (like this user again)! This user even protects the discussion page so no one can complain! He also deletes my arguments when I revert his editions! Not only he is using the wrong name of the competition but also he is editing a page which doesn't have to do with Brazil but with Portugal! He must be blocked! This page is a example of it: http://pt.wikipedia.org/Os_Tr%C3%AAs_Grandes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.57.166 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You do realize this is the English wikipedia? There isn't anything we can do on another Misplaced Pages site. Ravensfire (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And you do realize that the portuguese wikipedia sent me here to complain? LOL If there isn't a complaints page in portuguese what should I do? And even if it exists it is dominated by brazilians like the rest of the portuguese version of the site so they will give him the reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.57.166 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know none of us is an administrator on pt.wiki. There is literally nothing we can do to help. It looks like the place to go is pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos/Outros. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not, it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.57.166 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You can try Meta then, but if a calm discussion (and I trust you've tried the calm discussion, not the tone you used here) on your Misplaced Pages site doesn't produce anything, you may be facing a scenario where the consensus view is against you and you may need to accept that. Those are your options. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What's that? I'm only reacting like this because certain users act like dictators and it pisses me off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.80.80 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

user engaging in nothing but disruptive editing

Plutowuto (contribs) has been engaging in nothing but disruptive editing and vandalism since account creation about 2 weeks ago. he has continued this behaviour despite several warnings from both myself and several other users. his edits generally try to promote nationalistic views and are revisionist in nature as it goes against sourced content. he also does not bother to add sources or an edit summary. he has not engaged in edit warring and all his edits have been detected and reverted quickly by other editors and after warning left on his page he does not edit the same page again. while he is not a particularly malicious editor , his edits have more of a nuisance value for others to keep track of his contribs and check his edits.

all the contribs on his page are of this nature but i have included a few diffs for reference. Pvpoodle (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 5

I had already blocked this editor indefinitely before I saw this report. I would have given a fairly short block, were it not for edit summaries such as this one and this one, which convinced me that the editor is not acting in good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards