Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 13 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

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'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. AlanS (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at User talk:AlanS/Archive 1 seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As Calathan says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. Begoon  04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). AlanS (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? Begoon  08:42, 7 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)

The two examples given by Calathan two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. Hack (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, AlanS placed PROD on Adewale Ayuba, an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (diff). Hack (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you enjoy nitpicking? AlanS (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, this latest one is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there is a persistent problem here. I suggest the following:

What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, AlanS should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place.
• Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{Prod blp}} instead of {{Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references.
• Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat Calathan's words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect.
• Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion
• Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. WaggersTALK 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Number 57:, I hear what User:Waggers is saying. Do other admins agree? AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your query above, AlanS, the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a WP:DONTGETIT situation. WaggersTALK 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence Ronny Aloema twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). Number 57 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take what you've said onboard. AlanS (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol

• This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off User talk:AlanS/Archive 1, particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "I think you should be banned from having an opinion." and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. Begoon  14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. AlanS (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. Hack (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. Begoon  15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say that putting a "notability" tag on a César Award-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. Ritchie333 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. Begoon  15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - adding a properly formatted !vote, in case my opinion is not clear, above and below. The WP:IDHT is, unfortunately, deafening still, 3 days later. Begoon  20:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made 120+ PRODs in the last 72 hours, and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to one article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken Number 57 (talk · contribs) comments on-board. AlanS (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and support banning of Prod - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of César Award winning actress Anne Brochet. Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic Cyrano de Bergerac. This blatant disregard to WP:DEL-REASON occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's as if you're ignoring WP:AGF in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. AlanS (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior." Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but.. - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Misplaced Pages, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history to a conversation that occurred in Whitehouse Institute of Design at and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of WP:AGF occurring). AlanS (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to new issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a WP:CIR issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" — if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of Whitehouse Institute of Design. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. AlanS (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Misplaced Pages experience. Hope that helps! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - having a look at the PRODs listed at User:AlanS/PROD log, there have been 74 PRODs (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid deletion reasons making 100% of the PRODs invalid. Hack (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. WaggersTALK 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Oppose and counter-proposal - Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP where we desperately need more reviewers. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.- MrX 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering the the poor judgement demonstrated by continuing to make questionable deletion nominations during this discussion, the attitude, and the evident lack of competence in this area, I now support a temporary NPP ban to include nominating any page for PROD or XfD.- MrX 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to Hack's comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. Begoon  17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. AlanS (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hack's message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? Begoon  03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a trout and change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you propose and what does it involve? AlanS (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a valid reason for deletion is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise AlanS to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.

  "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.

  I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.

  Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. Chillum 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. AlanS (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm responding to AlanS's comment above that I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at Whitehouse Institute of Design while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in edit summary), Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD. I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What you trying to game WP:BRD to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. My comment is aimed at your over-hastiness. If an article is unreferenced, we can just put a "cite required" tag on it and wait a while. It doesn't have to be gone immediately because you don't like it. If a discussion pauses, it might be because real life intrudes. We, as individuals, have opinions and agendas. Getting more eyes and more opinions on a problem is always good, even if it means waiting more than a few minutes for a result. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He wants to remove bios of MLB players, such as Bob Adams of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't just "tag" that article but you prodded it for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. As per deletion policy:"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you had no interest in following WP:BEFORE and looking for sources to improve the article, then place a references tag on it. That you fail to understand this basic tenant of our deletion policy, even during your ANI, is very disturbing. --Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The article also had a link to baseball-reference.com, meaning it wasn't unreferenced. Hack (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hasn't this discussion gone on for long enough. I see no consensus for anything. AlanS (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked for someone to close it here: . Hope that will help. Begoon  16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Comments such as the ones that he made above show that he doesn't understand the concept of deleting articles without discussion. If he can't grasp the easy basics of a BLP PROD, perhaps he should be forced to take a break and take the time given to review the deletion policy. Given the fact that numerous editors here have pointed out issue after issue and he's come back with nothing but spite for them, I don't think that anything other than a ban will stop the disruption. Dusti 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support this, and recommend extension to speedy deletion process as well. Editor just tagged for speedy deletion an academic at a major American university. who received a notable award in her field and holds an endowed chair. That's about as bad a call as you can make. and shows a complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Update - Despite the ANI and repeated explanation of deletion and PRODding policies, this editor just speedy prodded E. L. Thorndike Award winner and UCLA Presidential Chair Sandra Graham with the rationale "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." This is days after sympathetic comments like those of Waggers above with the plea that AlanS stop prodding articles that don't meet the deletion criteria. This has become a colossal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I now agree with the The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) in banning from speedy deletion process --Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support the extended ban Every time an article is incorrectly listed for deletion we risk not only losing the article, but the editor. NPP is difficult enough to keep current, without also having to undo the problems of those who do it improperly. We need more good people there, but everyone who won't or can't learn how to do it is doing active harm to the project. The continuing use of the rationale, "but it got fixed" shows that this misunderstanding of basic deletion policy is still present. If the discussions above haven't succeeding in explaining it, nothing will. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As it happens I just warned AlanS about this unwarranted CSD nomination--and now that I glance upward I see that that's probably what Hullabaloo was talking about. No, this is not good. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support In Alan's defense, this PROD wasn't completely wrong. However upon checking the content of the article I found it to be a copyvio, so I removed his PROD and applied CSD#G12 accordingly. This PROD also turned out to be a copyvio, so again I removed his PROD tag and applied CSD#G12. This PROD (IMO) wasn't completely faulty as apparently he didn't know that the article was really under Blackstreet. I propose that AlanS stay away from NPP for at least 3-6 months and thoroughly read and understand WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and especially WP:ATHLETE, since a lot of the PRODS that I saw were of soccer players.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 3-month ban per speedy nom of Sandra Graham during this discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• I was on the fence about this, but seeing that AlanS is continuing to PROD articles, when his controversial PROD activity is being debated is not a sign of acceptance that there is community concern of his actions. Support extended ban. Blackmane (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support any ban on all deletion activities, whether PROD or CSD or AFD. As per Blackmane, it is clear that he isn't learning. I don't recommend a period of time, but rather than he be able to appeal in six months. With a period of time, there is the risk that he could just start up again. He doesn't seem to be trying to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by IP 208.76.111.243

I believe the person using IP 208.76.111.243 is editing just to harass me. As of this moment they have 23 edits:

• 18 on Jimbo Wales user talk page
• 3 on my talk page
• 1 on their own talk page
• 1 at ANI

All but three are to or about me. I believe whomever is using this account is doing so just to hound and harass me. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you point out what you think is harassing so it's more clear what the behaviors are. I'm not saying that to say you're wrong in fact I don't plan on stating that at any point here even after posting it but if you want to say they are hounding or harassing you, can you show the part you find objectable. For better or worse many wikipedians are talking about you, and your actions trying to raise awareness via twitter will have good and bad results. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The comments started out polite enough, I suppose, though it concerned me that an IP was asking me questions. (I've had this happen before, more than once.) But they got snarkier as time went along. The recent "straw man" and "care to try again" response was obviously meant to goad. But mostly, as I said above, out of a total of 23 edits - 20 are for or about me. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for being more clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will have a statement following this shortly, but I would like to initially point out that at no point prior to her filing this complaint has Lightbreather expressed any of these concerns to me or anyone else. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. She's not required to file her form in triplicate and get it signed by two admins while standing on one foot, chewing gum, and patting her head. Your response indicates you've been here for a very long time. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite incorrect there Viriditas. I have not been here for a very long time. I have, however, been around computers, networks and online communities for a very very long time. I have a feeling you are overestimating how quickly one can become familiar with this community and its processes. After all it's moderately well documented and the markup, while arcane for this day and age of GUIs, is nothing compared to languages and systems I have mastered in the past. Although I will admit that I'm utterly mystified by what to do in the event of edit conflicts beyond reloading the page and pasting my comments. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions from this IP appear only to focus on Lightbreather, not building an encyclopedia. You also seem to be very familiar with how Misplaced Pages works. I think my hypothesis has more merit than yours. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas if I was so familiar with Misplaced Pages then it would stand to reason that I would not be stymied by posting my response due to the edit filter. Even though my response has no language that would be inappropriate in any setting. I'm currently reading up on the false positives and what to do. Thank you for your patience. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a case of not being here to write an encyclopedia. Chillum 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Response - As I said earlier, prior to this complaint Lightbreather has not expressed any of the concerns that she has raised here to me personally. She has engaged me in conversation more than half a dozen times without expressing any concern with me whatsoever.

Given the above, I'm afraid that the only conclusion that I can come to about this report is that it is retaliatory for me pointing out that she is in violation of her topic ban by acting on a sanction that has been proposed against someone with whom she has battled frequently. As you can see , Lightbreather should be fully aware that her support vote on AN was a violation given that she had explicitly received an exemption previously as well as the fact that the opening sentence on AN is: "Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a gun control advocate rather than an academic researcher." (emphasis mine). I believe she implicitly acknowledges this and by all appearances seems to be trying to game the system to in her reply to me on AN when I pointed out that she was currently topic banned in the area in which she was voting.

Finally, I find it very interesting that she's actively sending tweets out to the world with her Misplaced Pages account linked as the user but is labeling commentary on the very project and topic she opines upon as harassment.

Nonetheless, If she does not want me to interact with her all she need do is ask. I'm a reasonable person and will take this as that request and stop when this is closed. However, I do request that that my concern above is given some administrative attention. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're an experienced Wikipedian, familiar with arcane and complex processes like arbcom, using an IP account for the singular purpose of attempting to bait and harass Lightbreather. Got it. Any reason you shouldn't be blocked? Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If reading Misplaced Pages for years makes me experienced then so be it, but I didn't start editing until I saw the posts about 'civility' (and went back to the history) on Jimmy Wales' page last week or the week before. I began commenting in the discussion because I think that heavy handed enforcement of something as ill-defined as civility could be harmful for this project that has brought me countless hours of fascination. I believe that I've engaged in the conversation politely and I hope that I've made some thoughtful points. I've also read some very thoughtful points from both sides of the aisle.

And again I find this curious in that you are now coaching Lightbreather on her talk page on how to invite more discussion on the topic with inflammatory tweets that link directly back to Misplaced Pages.

Finally, calling arbcom arcane is laughable in that it was on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report and I've read several cases with interest since then. I also find it curious how aggressive and uncivil you're being towards me and I'll ask you nicely to tone it down please. Thank you. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is most certainly best described as arcane, and there is nothing laughable about using that term at all -- unless of course you are a regular using a dedicated IP to attack Lightbreather. "New users" don't make edits like this. I don't see anything aggressive or uncivil about what I've written here, and I think I've politely informed you that I don't believe your story. Using an IP solely dedicated to baiting and attacking an editor isn't acceptable, and you must stop doing it. If you want to edit the encyclopedia, start an article, or contribute in some way that has nothing to do with Lightbreather, then fine, but I think if you continue talking about Lightbreather and following her around after she has told you to stop, then you should be blocked. In other words, don't talk about Lightbreather from here on out. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is inappropriate. An interaction ban is a remedy that merits community scrutiny; you certainly don't get to impose one all by yourself. betafive 05:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate, Mr. New Registered Account within the last 24 hours. It's called common sense. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense? I disagree entirely, and I'm troubled at the appearance of presuming to circumvent policy. If your suggestion is so appropriate, it should be easy to build a consensus around it, yah? betafive 06:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

THe IP's concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if they haven't been already. But, yeah, they're obviously not new to Misplaced Pages and in the current climate I'd say it is almost certainly someone who is logged-out rather than someone who has been editing for ages without an account. That said, WP:AGF etc? - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "legitimate" concerns to address. Lightbreather has asked the IP to leave her alone, and the IP's entire contribution history shows that they are only here to harass her. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I go over this IP's contribs, the more I think WP:SOCK might apply. Specifically: Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. Based on the editing history here, I see an IP editing while logged out strictly to harass Lightbreather. 0 edits to article space, all but 3 have been on talk pages or noticeboards directly responding to the petitioning user. Although WP:NOTHERE is not a policy, it clearly applies here as others have pointed out. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, the alleged topic ban breach? - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned WP:sock, Solarra. I went to WP:SPI first because this IP user's writing style reminds me of some other WP editors I've conversed with in the past, but I couldn't put my finger on who exactly, so I chose this board instead. Lightbreather (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: What the IP is alleging is that this ARBCOM enforcement request is violating Lightbreather's TBAN on Gun Control. I'm still doing my research on whether or not the act of reporting someone in a topic area of a TBAN (in this case gun control) in and of itself violates that TBAN. Early indications are yes but I'm trying to find a definitive policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's why it is a legitimate concern. - Sitush (talk)&redirect=no 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: actually my concern is with Lightbreather's vote at the Administrators noticeboard titled "Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material". I would post a diff but the edit filter is flagging them as ASCII art for some reason. Thank you 208.76.111.243 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a "legitimate concern", it seems like stalking and harassment. Should I expect a reply from the newly registered account or the IP? Please pick one. And at what point will your account be working on the encyclopedia instead of on Lightbreather? Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done the research. Lightbreather was originally TBANed from Gun Control due to the multiple reports filed at ARBCOM enforcement and an ongoing edit dispute in the ARBCOM sanctioned area involving multiple editors. The edits on the AE request linked above were specifically allowed by the admin applying the TBAN. Lightbreather's !vote here is in direct violation of her TBAN on Gun Control per WP:TBAN. I have to recommend that the closing admin here take a close look at the TBAN violation brought up by the IP.

That being said, my arguments above and the original concerns of Lightbreather are valid, the IP is clearly editing in a manner to harass her and the editing while logged out is highly suspect. Viriditas is absolutely right, the IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 06:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Solara, As I said above, now that it's clear that my participation is uncomfortable for Lightbreather I will stop commenting about her, or to her, going forward unless I need to clarify something in this one single area on ANI which appears unlikely. Good night all. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses for using ips/alternate accounts but avoiding scrutiny is explicitly disallowed. Using an IP to work on getting someone in trouble qualifies. If the single purpose nature of this account continues I will consider your IP to be evasion of scrutiny. Log into the account that you clearly have if you want to vent your opinion on these issues.

If there is an issue with LB then it can be looked into separately. Chillum 06:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (without commenting on the threads justification or finding) User: Viriditas can not unilaterally issue restrictions to any editor and IP 206 should feel free to ignore their instructions. IBans are usually decided by community process. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket, that hasn't stopped him in the past so don't expect that to happen in the future. --Malerooster (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP per WP:SOCK which says: Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account, and avoiding scrutiny to boot(and WP:NOTHERE and WP:HARRASS and WP:SPA if more is needed). It is obvious this is an experienced Wikipedian.

Any admin is welcome to alter or reverse this block. However please read my block summary and my comments on the talk page before considering this. Also please ping me if you are unblocking or considering an unblock request.

I have used the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option since this person claims to not have an account. I don't believe it for a second and since blocks are against the person and not the account/ip I felt it appropriate.

I doubt the individual will seek an unblock request from their account when they encounter the auto-block, they will wait it out to avoid scrutiny. Chillum 06:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems rather problematic. Did the IP in question do something in particular between your 8 August threat ("If the single purpose nature of your account..." and your 9 August block? Did you engage WP:SPI to establish whether User:208.76.111.243 is actually a sock before blocking under WP:SOCK, or is that just your assumption? Not all experienced Misplaced Pages editors have accounts, y'know. betafive 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the most recent edits from the IP promises to leave LB alone I am willing to reverse this block.

Experienced editors have a history, if he used another IP in the past then he could show us that history. I don't go to WP:SPI for quacking feathered water based animals to check if they are a duck, and checkusers cannot prove someone is not a sock puppet. This person is clearly using an IP to avoid scrutiny, that much is obvious.

This user is hiding their history. Either they have an account with more edits or they have ip(s) with more edits. Either way we are being denied that history and I have to judge them based on that I see in their current contribution history. Regardless of the harassment and the singular purpose of this IP's edits they have contributed nothing to the encyclopedia.

In hindsight I should have blocked on the 8th instead of the warning I gave, but since I have given the warning I will reverse the block and watch this IP closely. Chillum 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked this IP due to concerns here. We will see what it results in. Chillum 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also welcome to Misplaced Pages Betafive. I see you just joined up on the 7th. I see you are improving the encyclopedia, thank you. Not sure how you found your way here after 2 days but thanks for your opinion. Chillum 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiya! I've actually been around for almost a decade now, editing as whatever dynamic IP address my ISPs have chosen to assign me, although not so much in the last few months-- IPs are treated pretty poorly around here, and it's been getting worse as time goes on. I actually preferred editing as an IP once upon a time, but the incessant demands I produce a detailed list of previous IP addresses I've been assigned, along with a fairly pervasive attitude that IPs need not be afforded the assumption of good faith, got to be too much. While I do understand your desire to see the IPs edit history, his/her failure to have provided you with such a list not necessarily evasive: personally, I avoided keeping track, and regardless, I'm not aware of any policy saying that IP users who appear to be experienced need to provide a detailed edit history on-demand. Anyway, I'm glad you reversed that block, and thanks for the welcome! betafive 19:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been editing for a decade as an IP and only now decided to register an account? Please forgive me if I don't believe you. I've been reading your contributions and you have as much knowledge about Misplaced Pages as an admin. I think it is much more likely that this is your alternative account or you are evading a block or a ban on another account. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ya, there is a lot of that going around right now. Seems to be way more experienced brand new accounts and IPs joining heated discussion than there was two weeks ago. I will assume good faith as long as it is reasonable to do so. I am not demanding an edit history, I am judging the user based on the edit history they have chosen to show us. Chillum 19:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

New Commentor: May I point out I do not believe Viridtas comments were civil and I do not believe you are assuming good faith and quite frankly appear paranoid. You are rude to IP's and question their intentions. I have edited since 2005 myself and my IP changes from time to time. And may I point out I will never join this "community" as a registered editor because of such snarky commentary. I stay out of disfunctional groups. If editors had to show their real identity instead of hiding behind some imaginary wiki persona I may consider joining. No need to join an Alice in Wonderland imaginary group. There are many of us independent thinkers out there who see no need to join despite much coercion to do so. 24.177.109.112 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack

I can't see that there's any justification for this edit summary. Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

:/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: . 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW see the OP's record at WP:Long term abuse here. Kahastok talk 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as this edit then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP for plenty of other examples. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here he goes again: 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you would create an account & stick with it, tensions might drop. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. WCM_email 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the boomerang -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner cunts, cunts, cunts, You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster", you fucking idiot, told you nicely to fuck off. now fuck off., rv idiot, just fuck off, rm tiresome dickhead, For fuck's sake. Don't revert for no good reason. Do you understand why it pisses people off if their efforts are reverted for no good reason?, rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers

Variously, he'll claim:

• its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case
• its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia

And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. WCM_email 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now on 5RR after warning at Argentine Military Cemetery. I'd go to WP:AN3, but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. Kahastok talk 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? Tarc (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check Talk:Ian Gow and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. WCM_email 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling.

Including the bad language. This was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). Kahastok talk 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now blocked for 3RR. Kahastok talk 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. Monty₈₄₅ 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first (some cunt reverted for no reason) as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a WP:CIVIL policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? WCM_email 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly Unclean hands. Monty₈₄₅ 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did?

No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. WCM_email 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.

So let me just note that all this starts with a somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by WCM simply reverting because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for Kahastok to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to Favonian's block. So what's next, after all this? Srich32977 comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and edit accordingly ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite this revert a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's no more "woman hating" than calling someone a prick or a dick is "man hating". Such bollocks. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided.

As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a BBC TV documentary made by Peter Snow and Dan Snow - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. Kahastok talk 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may clarify, most IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable.

This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block.

This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned.

We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. Chillum 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned.
• Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. WCM_email 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. WCM_email 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did not read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and anyone can see this in the article history, one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known - wikipedia neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.

  For the onlookers, WCM pointed at Ian Gow or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.

  I'm not making apologies for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (e.g., the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--MarshalN20 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?

  The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. Chillum 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Misplaced Pages (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see ), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--MarshalN20 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior.

By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble.

I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility.

You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. Chillum 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the LOVE it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do.

Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not.

Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. Chillum 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to offer a public apology to Chillum for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a wikipedia editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses.

I am extremely disappointed that Drmies misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a "somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary" was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject.

I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at Talk:Ian Gow. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out.

Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total WP:DICK if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act.

Baseball Bugs makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them.

Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. WCM_email 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing requires discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On Talk:Ian Gow you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to completely fail to address the content question. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, Born2cycle.

Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29 (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP never came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of my time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend any editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there.

You're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging Born2cycle because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at Talk:Ian Gow was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy .

As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 . WCM_email 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away.

Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. WCM_email 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Paging Nick-D my mentor. It is completely untrue to claim I was blocked for incivility; pointedly it was noted that I had remained civil despite being provoked by a number of editors. The actual reason for the topic ban if you boil it down was to vociferously defend myself in talk pages and its one of this wikipedia situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now this isn't the first time that Elaqueate has chosen to fling this at me, I'm getting rather tired of having to defend myself against these false accusations. The 1RR restriction is a voluntary thing on my part and I have stuck to it with one this one exception, when I got fed up with this. I have done exactly I said I would focusing on my editing and just helped take Falkland Islands to FA status. WCM_email 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a voluntary condition you undertook as part of lifting a topic ban. I don't think that's the same thing as saying it's voluntary as to whether you bother with it after you commit to it. Is it only a condition when you're not fed up, and non-binding when you are fed up? If you're here saying that you were topic-banned due to the behaviour of others, then I think you are back-tracking on what you said at your topic ban lifting. You are not "damned if you don't" if you don't vociferously respond in talk pages. That's what you were topic banned for six months for, and if you're still characterizing it as needful somehow, there's a problem.

As far as bringing it up here, this is an ANI incident where you "got fed up" and reverted multiple times on a Falkland Islands page. Why shouldn't there be passing notice of your topic ban condition for exactly that? Why wasn't there notice of your topic ban condition? A directly relevant editing restriction seems like the kind of thing you should have passed on to Chillum when you thought they didn't have the full background story.

Since you say incivility had no part in your topic bans, I should take a look over those discussions. Maybe you point out to me where you were cleared of any incivility in your topic ban. I see many accusations of behavior that would be classified as uncivil and I can't see what you're referring to. Even in the discussion regarding the lifting of your topic ban, people who supported you still mention that you got into an uncivil dustups contrary to what you state in your request. I'm fine with looking further into it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se, though the issues which led to it did include impolite treatment of other editors. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond. Dropping the C word also wasn't a good idea at all and I'd urge you to not do it again on Misplaced Pages, but isn't directly relevant to the terms of your topic ban being lifted (I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to not swearing on Misplaced Pages, but the C word is pretty much guaranteed to cause offence to a range of editors, regardless of circumstances). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D Nick, I agree with everything you said. That is why I apologised, undertook not to repeat it (and if I do I expect Chillum to carry out his undertaking to block me if I renege on that promise) and I think you'll agree it was uncharacteristic. If I'm mistaken please correct me, the 1RR restriction wasn't a condition of the removal of the topic ban it was something I undertook to do voluntarily to keep out of trouble and I've stuck to it with this one exception. I have also made an effort to be more culturally sensitive ie not reply in Glaswegian to delicate flowers.

You suggested I should have gone to an admin and part of the problem is I did. Please note the date of this diff You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster" and I've been having the same thing from this editor ever since. I've now had the admin I asked for help accusing me of A) only wanting blocks and bans and now B) of somehow stalking an IP hopping editor looking for trouble. Please can someone explain how I'm supposed to do that? If I'm apparently running into the same IP hoppping editor repeatedly but given only one of us can knows how to find the other it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is stalking who. Why is such a ludicrous allegation allowed to be levelled and not challenged? I don't want anyone blocked or banned, I've never asked for either only for the opportunity to discuss my edits in a reasonable manner. WCM_email 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

POINT-ful IP at Hacker News

Could an admin please review the most recent contributions from 2.219.55.12 (talk) at Hacker News and the accompanying talk-page discussion? The editor in question has been slow-speed warring a one-sided controversy section into the article, removing POV and verifiability issue templates from that section, threatening an overt edit-war (), and, most recently, asserting that he/she would abuse open proxies if blocked for said behavior (). I'm suggesting the article be semi-protected, although I defer to the judgement of those with cooler tempers than I. Thanks! betafive 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor in question and I advise admin staff to review the talk page to see the context of the talk. A number of editors have attempted to highlight the valid and oft-discussed moderation policy at Hacker News however two accounts continually revert any edits and remove any citations without giving a valid reason.

Upon questioning their motives they stonewall answers and continue to revert the changes. I am not the first editor to raise the moderation piece, I am one of a series but Vladimir and BetaFive are intent on applying their draconian interpretation of the rules without justifying any reasoning and denying primary sources including published letters and communications from parties affected.

It was under the context of continual reversions that I told BetaFive that if he refused to engage in dialogue then obviously an edit war would continue (of which he is 50% responsible). When he said I would be blocked I highlighted I could resort to a proxy so blocking would be pointless in this regard. I fail to see how he can accuse one half of a reversion disagreement with being unreasonable when he will not cease reverting edits himself or engage in any dialogue whatsoever.

2.219.55.12 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a content matter, but I've gutted about half of the article, including the entire criticism / controversy section, as not being reliably sourced. You can't reasonably have an article about an online forum that sources criticism of the forum entirely to people's on-forum complaints, and then personal blog posts where they complain about how they were treated on the forum. That would be original research in any context, but it is especially unreliable on a discussion forum — it would be like sourcing Misplaced Pages's article to this page. I've removed the POV tag because after removing the unreliably sourced information there is no POV left. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add something which might be relevant to this ANI section. The user has stated or alluded that his position is supported by multiple editors:

• "(...) since several Misplaced Pages editors have attempted to highlight the factual practice (...)"
• "At present you are the sole user reverting contributions centering on the moderation controversy indicating you are both in the minority (...)"
• "A number of editors have attempted to highlight (...)" (higher in this disccussion)

I've looked into the page's history, and noticed that all edits which attempt to (re)introduce the moderation controversy into the article come from IP addresses:

• Original introduction by 24.5.218.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert/addition by 90.205.226.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert by 176.249.50.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert by 157.203.242.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert 1, 2, 3 by 2.219.55.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I thought it was worth bringing up considering the user's threats to abuse open proxies. --Vladimir (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an outright lie and selective reading of the edits. Are you denying that Wingman and others have not sourced and added to the moderation controversy paragraph? Is that what you are stating? I expect your answer full rounded out with all of the edits and not *just* the selective anonymous edits you have chosen. --94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wingman4l7's edits are non-content, formatting only. I cannot provide evidence for the absence of something. If I am wrong, provide counter-examples. --Vladimir (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One more: POINT edit removing most of the article. Editor threatened that "the editing will continue". --Vladimir (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Insinuating that because I am currently editing from an IP and I did so in July that all the edits are from the same person. You should have the moral fortitude to just come out and say it. If I am indeed the mystery editor for all changes well gosh...haven't I just bided my time nicely between edits; almost 5 years! I care about this issue but not enough to spread out a nefarious plot over 36 months or more.

In addition, you *still* refuse to answer questions on why a primary source is not valid. In actual fact, you are refusing to answer any of my questions on the talk page. So yes, for everyone to see, I am stating right now that if editors contending my edits refuse to engage in dialogue then I see no reason why their edits should be respected.

Engage in dialogue, reach a consensus or the edits continue. I do not see that as unreasonable; your insistence on publishing links to wikipedia rules with absolutely no context is more disruptive.

94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me like this is a case where semi-protection would be warranted until people calm down. Disclaimer: I don't post to HN so I have no idea how deserved (or undeserved) criticism thereof is. What I do know is that for example Stackoverflow has received plenty of criticism for how it does some things (some of which appears in highly upvoted threads on its own meta site, e.g. ) but it can be difficult to find non-self-published sources to even mention the issues. Some info remains ghetto, for better or worse, even in a supposedly highly connected interweb. JMP EAX (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point of Misplaced Pages is not to discuss all "issues" with all popular web sites. I'd also note that some might find your use of the word "ghetto" inappropriate (smh.) I do agree that semiportection is called for, though. betafive 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the case JMP. The editors are denying any source which is reflecting negatively on Hacker News whilst accepting all positive sources originating from Hacker News and Paul Graham himself. The equivalent would be accepting the financial statements of a corporation as gospel and refusing to accept whistleblowing by employees. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is now edit warring to blank nearly all of the article claiming that if primary sources cannot be used as WP:OR to demonstrate a moderation controversy they can't be used to source things like the name of the founder. It's somewhere between WP:POINT and vandalism at this point. The article ought to be semi-protected at this point, restored to a version without any vandalism, and if anyone can get a fix on the IP, probably a range block. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with semi-protection, but I think IP range blocks are uncalled for at this point. The editor is interested in only one article, semi-protection should solve the vandalism/WP:POINT edits, and still allow him/her to continue the discussion on the talk page. --Vladimir (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should the article be locked without the moderation controversy wikidemon? The moderation controversy paragraph was established before either you or I arrived at the article to edit so please explain why *your* version should be protected? You have yet to explain Paul Graham is a legitimate primary source but anyone criticizing Mr Graham is to be discounted as a primary source. Let's lock the article *with* the moderation controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.82.228 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've listed this article at WP:Requests for Page Protection, asking for temporary semi-protection. Tbh, I don't care which version is protected; we can hash out the content with {{edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page if it comes to that. betafive 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If an admin is watching this, could we please just do it? The issue is pretty black and white, and vandalizing an article to prove a point is clear. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is only black and white to you because you think you are right. Further evidence of your dismissive attitude and lack of willingness to engage in dialogue. Listen to yourself, your attitude is not reflective of the principles of wikipedia. Find another article to peddle your superiority complex. 157.203.243.21 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have also brought this editor's behavior to WP:3RRN. betafive 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Update. I've done some quick editing on the article (in which I wasn't involved before) using a (not self-published) secondary source. It seems that both sides in above dispute have seen my edits as a reasonable compromise. So more drastic admin measures can probably be postponed until/unless there's another flare up; crossing fingers that won't happen... but then this is the internet. JMP EAX (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The IP editor is currently engaged in an incredibly stupid revert war on the article talk page. 5RR at this point I believe. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well WikiDemon, the user is now reverting your own edits as well. 18:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.134.51 (talk)
    • And so has User:Betafive. I don't really want to know what that's about. Admins: fire at will. JMP EAX (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As User:C.Fred pointed out on one of those user's IP talk page (), editing another user's comments after warnings not to do so is vandalism, the reversion of which is exempt from 3RR. betafive 18:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I simply want the Editor BetaFive to stop listing his conclusion as *the* conclusion for the page. Yet he refuses to edit the Summary so I am editing it for him. WikiDemon, pack up your bias and get lost. Any reasonable editor can see that BetaFive does NOT reserve the right to summarise his own arguments as the consensus of everyone on the talk page. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • (ec) 6RR now. Yes, it's pretty obvious what the IP's beef is, they want vindication of their content position so they're edit warring their opinion into BetaFive's attempt to summarize the discussion, and BetaFive either doesn't notice or doesn't care that the newbie objects to the "conclusion" template's making BetaFive's summary look official. None of that matters too much, we shouldn't waste our time coddling a clueless newbie who repeatedly gets into angry edit war mode, they've got to get with the program or take a little break. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Partially correct. I am not edit warring. I asked Betafive to write an impartial summary or simply remove his arguments from the summary. It presents a false picture to newer editors coming in. He refused. It is that simple. I don't need coddled, what I need is cliquey people to stop acting like little schoolgirls and grouping together. Now, Betafive has shown his true colours by also reverting the edits by Wikidemon so is he now vandalising? No, prob not. It must be OK for two friends to edit each others comments. Just not for the new guy to demand some impartiality from two morons who cannot see that a Conclusion should list all of the input into the Conclusion not just the parts that agree with WikiDemon and BetaFive. It was clearly an attempt to list themselves as the victors. Transparent and childish. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion thread. In all frankness, I don't care whether the IP has a point or not with the conclusion. The issue at hand is dealt with, and nothing further is going to come out of that discussion. Personally, I'd suggest anybody wanting to figure out the points of the discussion to read the discussion rather than a refactored synopsis...and after having read to draw your own conclusion, there's nothing further to see, please move along. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken format created by all the edit warring. The content point is simple, an inexperienced editor wants to add some content without having a solid grounding on our sourcing and other standards. The reason it came here instead of staying on the talk page is that instead of trying to read and understand the rules or listen to other editors they threw a fit and started edit warring, insulting people, feeling victimized, etc. A common enough problem. If they stay here, and don't learn from this, it's going to recur. A quick block or page semi-protection at the beginning would have saved a lot of trouble, that's why 3RR is supposed to be a bright-line rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not really that simple though is it. The information was cited and eventually it took other editors to finally find the citations that you were happy with *despite* wikipedia stating that primary sources are valid in non-contentious issues. I am fairly sure we can trust over 20 individual blog posts from different tech leaders all discussing Hellbanning. Well, we can except you can't. What actually happened is an inexperienced editor utterly tore your logic to pieces and you didn't like it because you feel some ownership over editing at wikipedia. You refused to engage in any dialogue or display even a shred of credibility regarding your thinking. All in all, every time you were challenged you threw up wikipedia "rules" which neither supported your logic or made any sense. I admit I might have reverted too many times, but it does not vindicate your behaviour. Now how about you shut up talking about me, you are not even close to the intellectual level required to debate critically. I agree that these problems will recur, but it is *because* of editors like you not in spite of you. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My honourable colleague would do well to avoid personal attacks against the character and intellect of his fellow editors. Such comments do not promote harmonious editing and are grounds for revoking the commenter's editing privileges. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nor do they bode well for this editor's becoming a useful contributor. Their fixation over moderation complaints, rules, and other editors here and on Hacker News suggests they're a serial social breacher; the fixation on maturity and boasts about superior intellectual abilities tells me they're young, and their spelling says UK. So what do we have? Too much time wasted already. Misplaced Pages could use some stronger moderation, perhaps even a forum for bringing disruptive behavior to the attention of administrators for a quick resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling says UK? Nice little national slander you have dropped in there. If it is too much time wasted already then get lost. No one has asked you personally to be here so stop complaining at the amount of time you have spent here. If anyone is displaying a fixatedness it yourself. You are fixated on talking about me over and over. I took a look at your talk page and your edit discussions. You have the social skills of an autistic parrot. Time to find a new hobby because Misplaced Pages is clearly not your strong point. 157.203.243.20 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We have that forum: it's WP:3RRN. I brought the user's behavior there after six reverts or something. Almost a dozen more reverts later, he/she/it still hasn't had editing privileges revoked. The issue isn't that the processes aren't there, it's that they're only selectively enforced. I'm #smh so hard at this kerfuffle it may fall off. betafive 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A dozen reverts, of which half a dozen can be attributed to you. I love the selective interpretation you have. "We both made edits but *his* are wrong and only he should be banned". It is laughable. The issue is not selectively enforced, it is just not as clear cut as you are making out because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you made a mistake. I think you and Wikidemon have some growing up to do if you want to be effective social editors. Misplaced Pages editing is not something I aspire to but if I did I would certainly be more logical than both of you. 157.203.243.20 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User Skyhook1 on article Skyhook

User Skyhook1 (IP 72.199.145.35), a single-purpose account, has been displaying a hostile "ownership" attitude for several months and faking positive reviews on the Skyhook (structure) article. The administrator Huntster kindly helped me a lot to contain this user, until I got burned by the futility of trying to explain Verifiability and O.R. to Skyhook1. Whenever an editor adds a label, any label, including cleanup, citation needed, etc, he reverts it. There have been too many acid interactions to list them all. In addition:

• On March 7, 2014 he had a fit and performed 84 "undo" operations.
• On 22 April 2014 he was blocked for 24 h.
• On 22 June 2014 the article was semi-protected . That is when he seems to have started using Skyhook1 account regularly.

Over the months, I have spent a lot of time checking and fixing his text against the references, as the article fails verification. He rejects all changes and feedback. What is most troubling is that he is faking the conclusion of a report by Boeing that reviews 6 different space tether systems: Skyhook, Rotovator, CardioRotovator, CASTether/LIFTether, Tillotson Two-Tier Tether, and HARGSTOL/HASTOL. The Boeing study notes that: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." And concludes: "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." However he quotes the positive aspects of the HARGSTOL/HASTOL systems and uses them as if they were written for the Skyhook.

Of secondary but still high importance, he has introduced an inordinate amount of his Original Research and Synthesis on the qualities, peer acceptance and uses of the Skyhook tether. Aside from its promoter, no reference claims it can be built with existing materials, and when challenged, he asks you to do mathematical calculations, instead of citing a usable reference.

He claims he is a NASA engineer involved in the Skyhook project so he knows better than anybody else. No corrections needed. Not even the SPAM/advert style. ("I am an aeronautical engineer, a rocket scientist, a former test pilot, and probably the largest single contributor to former President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration". I have 4 degrees.")

The final drop was today; he is blaming me of posting porn links into the Skyhook article under a sock puppet account.. I have concluded that this is no ordinary edit war, but there is an larger issue of WP:COMPETENCE and ownership.

Your assistance is needed and appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute between BI and myself has been going on for quite awhile. You can review the current history in items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. Item 22, which was a request for WP:30, resulted in BI and friends ceasing their non-stop vandalism. That was on 22 June. From 22 June until 9 August I was able to work on the article (including input from other editors) without their inputs. You can view that version of the article on the Skyhook (structure)/view history page, the version dated 00:01, 10 August 2014. BI and friends version of the article is the one currently showing (17:56, 10 August 2014). If you will read both versions you will get a very clear view of the dispute. My positions is that BI's version is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the state-of-the art regarding skyhooks, all of which can be confirmed by reading the references that are in the 00:01, 10 August 2014 version of the article (most of which have been deleted from her version). There was also the beginnings of a discussion on this dispute on User talk: Unician, item 36, Re: Skyhook (structure) that you might find of value.

What I would like to see happen is for BI and friends to cease their vandalism, their wholesale deletion of sections of the article that show the incorrectness of their position, their misrepresentation of the facts, their sock puppet changes, their tag team behavior, and their linking of porn sites to the references. ( I first noticed the porn site links on 17:33, 3 July 2014. They were added on 02:38, 3 July by 79.67.245.33. 79.67.245.33 is one of the URLs for BI when she forgets to sign in. The porn site links are now gone. How they were put in and how they were removed I don't know. As to the sock puppets they are pretty easy to find if you are interested - check their contribution pages. )

In closing I would like to state my goals for the Skyhook (structure) article. They are simple. I am attempting to create an article on skyhooks, both rotating and non-rotating, that is informative, technically correct, up to date, fun to read, written so non-technical people can understand it and still be an information resource for technical people who are interested in this topic. When people ask questions, make comments, etc., I attempt to address those issues by adding more information to the article. The additions that were made to the article as a result of edits made by 92.32.80.56 and McSly are two examples of this.

Thank you for your time. Skyhook1 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/79.67.245.33 does not seem to contain any proof whatsoever that it's BatteryIncluded. The discussion of porn links also appears to be upside-down, because the edits by the former anonymous user appear to be fixing the problem that "original URL redirects to porn" (not introducing it).

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The porn site links were first added by 79.67.245.33 on 02:38, 3 July. Yes it does appear that they removed them from the history but only after I had removed them from the article on 01:54, 4 July. Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. You're reading abusive intent from a run-off-the-mill edit - this is standard procedure when formatting references with Citation Style 1 templates. Besides, it's not this anonymous user who caused the original website to be overtaken by an unrelated organization, that problem had already existed, which was likely the reason why those inline external links went to the Wayback Machine. --Joy (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I considered that possibility at the time but the specific references that had the porn site link attached also indicated BI. While that is not proof, in my mind it is a preponderance of indicators. One last thought on this subject; why did she feel the need to make these changes without signing in if she was fixing a problem that someone else had make? The fact that these are the only contributions by this user would appear to indicate the lack of signing in was intentional. Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In general the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the latest round of huge reverts started when an anonymous editor mass-reverted User:Skyhook1's edits without a clear edit summary, which was ostensibly tendentious and it started an edit war where parties didn't provide new, clear explanations of why they were adding or removing 38k of text (an edit summary rarely suffices in such a case).

Another question for you. This anonymous editor who did the mass-revert and started this latest round - why am I the one who you would censure when I was only undoing what I thought was vandalism? Also, if this truly was an anonymous edit, why has everyone else been so quick to undo months worth of work and change the article back to what it was many months ago? Why not just revert it to the pre-vandalism version? As I have been told so many times, everything on wikipedia is supposed to be by consensus and should be discussed on the Talk page. Don't you think that such massive changes as these should have been discussed?

Here is another thought for you. This anonymous editor of the mass revert was redone by BI under her own name after I had reverted it. Is it possible that this anonymous editor was BI or a friend of BI's doing her bidding? And if not, why did BI reinstate an apparent case of vandalism and why has everyone else been so quick to support this massive revert? Again, where is the discussion and who is acting like they own the article? Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at the latest bit of discussion at Talk:Skyhook (structure)#Fake reviews and the referenced HASTOL source, and it appears that BatteryIncluded is correct - our article about "skyhook" was using that term in a way that makes it unverifiable from the said HASTOL source - that source applies the term to "HyperSkyhook", but not to "HARGSTOL". The inference that both are skyhooks needs to be directly referenced from a source that actually says so, otherwise it's we have a trivial WP:SYNTH violation. The cover term used by the HASTOL source is "space tether", which is a separate Misplaced Pages article.

Please review items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page for more information regarding the content dispute on the HASTOL report. You are incorrect in your conclusion. Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I see no reason not to censure Skyhook1 for numerous policy violations (WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:OR). I suppose it's not impossible that someone interjects here by presenting unambiguous supporting materials for their claims, which would explain some of their behavior - but that still wouldn't mean much because these WP:DE issues are a problem in and of itself. --Joy (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a mess, and it's where we fall down. BatteryIncluded has done their best against this onslaught of POV garbage for a long time, with occasional support from good users. I think that has been a lonely job, and I thank them for doing it. If I knew how to go over there and help personally, I would, but I don't. We need to deal with this type of long term tendentious editing better. I don't know how, exactly, but supporting BatteryIncluded with whatever this board has at its disposal would be a start. Begoon  20:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So you give no credence to the comments by Stfg in item 22 of the Skyhook (structure) Talk page? Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Which comments? "the repeated, frankly tendentious insertions of your material into the article while you neglect basic Misplaced Pages competences", or "You're setting yourself above other editors and marking out a battleground, and you'll get nowhere like that.", perhaps? I'd give those comments some credence, yes. Perhaps you could do so, also. Begoon  05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about this one? "@BatteryIncluded:, @Huntster: I'm quite surprised to see two such experienced editors, and one of you an admin, arguing by edit summary, where you tell the IP to come to the talk page, and when he comes to the talk page, you ignore him here. I don't know and don't care about the technical details, but this is good faith editing, not vandalism, and I think you are both being unfair to do that. You also appear indistinguishable from a tag team.--Stfg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)"

BEgoon I did not come to wikipedia to pick fights but to write an article on skyhooks. From my perspective the fight was started by BI and friends. But I am also not inclined to backdown from a fight that someone else starts with me. Does that mean I put myself above everyone else? No, it just means that I push back when pushed. That might be inconvenient for you but you are here by choice too. You accuse me of POV; yet you have also made it clear that you have a POV and BI has made it clear that she has a POV, and all the other editors who have helped revert the skyhook article back to what it was months ago also have a POV. Isn't part of your job here to investigate the dispute and find out what the truth is in all of those POVs? Or is that a mistaken assumption on my part?

Here is a question for you about determining the truth. BI is fond of quoting the HASTOL report. Specifically, "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." She uses that as justification for her position that skyhooks can not be built. I have attempted to answer that many times as follows: "I have no disagreement with this statement. None of the skyhook studies referenced in the article are for skyhooks with a lower endpoint velocity this slow. None of them, rotating or non-rotating, come anywhere close to that slow of a lower endpoint velocity. The positive reviews for skyhooks in the HASTOL study that are included in this article are all for skyhooks with faster lower endpoint velocities." The positive review for the HASTOL study that I am referring to is this "The fundamental conclusion of the Phase I HASTOL study effort is that the concept is technically feasible. We have evaluated a number of alternate system configurations that will allow hypersonic air-breathing vehicle technologies to be combined with orbiting, spinning space tether technologies to provide a method of moving payloads from the surface of the Earth into Earth orbit. For more than one HASTOL architecture concept, we have developed a design solution using existing, or near-term technologies. We expect that a number of the other HASTOL architecture concepts will prove similarly technically feasible when subjected to detailed design studies. The systems are completely reusable and have the potential of drastically reducing the cost of Earth-to-orbit space access." BI is also fond of quoting the HASTOL study statement "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." If someone wrote that in a wikipedia article you would call it POV and delete it and you would be correct, it is POV. But it does not say that the non-spinning tether for the length they investigated could not be built. I have also told BI about all the other references that prove that skyhooks can be built but BI never responds to those comments other than to delete the references. So if you really are attempting to be fair, honest, and impartial in this investigation, how about you investigate these issues yourself by reading the references? Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Skyhook1: If you are holding one position, and "all of the other editors who have helped revert" are holding another position, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if just maybe you, and not them, are the one in the wrong. If "all of the other editors" are holding a position opposite yours, you need to stop trying to push "the truth" and accept that consensus is against you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

POV aside, many of user Skyhook1 entries are simply misleading fantasy, I once deleted an entry stating some kind of partnership between Skyhook and SpaceX. Please note user Skyhook1 states above that all the systems reviewed by Boeing are "Skyhooks" (false, they are orbiting momentum exchange tethers), so he claims that all the listed positive qualities of HASTOL applies to the Skyhook. But when the report concludes BY NAME that the Skyhook system is NOT competitive with the other 5 models, he changes the tune and wants us to believe that it does not actually apply to the Skyhook. It is very clear this single-purpose user has a bias, a possible conflict of interest, and introduces a massive amount of OR, POV and Synthesis generously sprinkled with wp:peacock terms. I hope that with your help this issue will come to a permanent solution soon. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Unless you're proposing formal sanctions on Skyhook1, the solution has already been implemented: the article has been pared back by other editors including myself to what is adequately sourced. Content can be added if it has proper references as I indicated on the talk page. All we need (right now) is for editors to keep an eye on the article. --NeilN 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree - the article as it stands is fine, and I thanked NeilN on the talkpage for the good work. Sanctions are preventative, so unless Skyhook1 were to continue adding poorly sourced OR material against consensus, or editing tendentiously in other ways, there'd be no need for that. Begoon  17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a recent observer to the Skyhook editing conflict. I have no interest in explaining or excusing some of the oddities in this article's edit history, but at least a bit of it may be due to a misunderstanding which I'm surprised hasn't been noticed until recently. As noted above (by Begoon? attribution is unclear), and as explained in more detail in my recent comments on the article talk page, there is a crucial disconnect in terminology. This article is about a very new real-world concept which not long ago was strictly science fiction. No real-world examples have yet been built, and the real-world terminology is still fluid. Different authors (including both Misplaced Pages editors and the writers of our references) don't always give the same concepts the same labels. One example: The Misplaced Pages article and the 2000 Boeing HASTOL report mean different things when they use the term “skyhook”. Our Misplaced Pages article uses it as a generic term, as evidenced by our distinction of spinning vs. non-spinning skyhooks. The Boeing study uses “skyhook” to mean a specific subset of designs, all manifestly non-spinning. This leads us to editor conflict and errors in content when one editor says that Boeing finds the (generic) “skyhook” concept feasible, while another editor says that Boeing finds the (specific) “skyhook” concept unworkable. Both are true. There are many additional references beyond the Boeing report. As a newcomer to this issue, I can't say which meaning of the term is more common, or if there is any consensus at all among reliable sources. Might anyone have a bit of wisdom on that to contribute? It might be that our first step towards resolution would be to explicitly state the consensus definition of “skyhook” at the start of the article, if such exists, or to simply establish one as the terminology of the article if our sources disagree, so that we're all speaking the same language.  Unician ∇  21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If it were the case that "terminology" issues were causing confusion, the article talk page would be the place to iron that out, as you say. It may be a contributing factor, and if it needs clarification, that should be done. When consensus is achieved there, the article could be updated. Tendentious editing of the article, repeatedly inserting content which is against demonstrated consensus, and implications that "all other editors" are part of some sort of gang conspiring to prevent the "truth" from being told is the disruption here - and that is the issue for this noticeboard, and the behaviour which must not be allowed to continue. Begoon  23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

STiki

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

Am unsure where to report this (if not here) but it appears that an ip editor is either using WP:STiki to resolve vandalism edits or is proporting to be doing so in their edit summaries. My understanding was taht someone required a WP account to run this so an Ip editor would be unable to. Advice/assistance would be appreciated in dealing/pointing in right direction. I have looked on the WP:STiki page but couldnt see a relevent place to post this there. Amortias (T)(C) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to report it to Stiki's talk page as the developer often responds to issues there promptly. Tutelary (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As developer of WP:STiki, I have looked into this case. It looks pretty innocent to me, but could indicate software issues (and I can't determine whether they are in STiki or Mediawiki itself). (Redacted).

Sometime during the STiki session the edits on Misplaced Pages stopped being associated to the username, and instead to the IP address (Redacted) but it certainly looks benign from a behavioral perspective. Will monitor further. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, echo me here or ping me on my talk page/WT:STiki if more is needed; I am not a follower. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera

We were having discussion on Talk:Andhra Pradesh when User:Visakha veera gave me legal threat "we will settle this issue in court" on my talk page when I warned the User, the response was personal attack ("you are arguing blindly") & further legal threat ("you are ready for blocking and court cases?") and then further threats ("are you ready for blocking?" & "we will legally solve in court! are you ready?"). The user has done personal attacks on me while having discussion with other user on their talk pages too e.g. here ("arguing blindly") The user is also engaged in WP:Canvassing and trying to form block against me which is clear from the posts made by user here, here and here. I'm feeling shocked & depressed by such vieled personal attacks and legal threats, after so much effort this is what i'm getting from fellow editors.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Visakha veera has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly making legal threats like this. I'd also like to note that he had been warned about possible discretionary sanctions in WP:ARBIP territory. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's no excuse for Visakha veera's behaviour but the background to it is repeated POV-pushing on Andhra Pradesh (and to a lesser extent also on other articles) by Faizhaider, claiming that Urdu is an official language in post-partition AP, "supporting" his claim with references that say nothing of the sort, while refusing to accept sources, including the Andhra Pradesh government web portal, that say that "the official language in Andhra Pradesh is Telugu", with "official language" in the singular. Which since there's a lot of tension around the status of various languages in India, and perhaps more so in Telangana and "new" Andhra Pradesh (which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago) than in other parts of India, means that there was quite a bit of provocation leading up to the legal threat. Thomas.W 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think that about sums it up. I'm having a hard time digging through Faizhaider's various relevant edits but I agree that he doesn't seem to be quite innocent either in this dispute. I've explained to Visakha Veera that they may be unblocked once they retract the legal threat. But I'm also wondering if a temporary topic ban for both editors as part of an arbitration enforcement would be justified. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely support a topic ban for both editors, regardless of length. A topic ban that for Faizhaider should include adding Urdu as official, co-official or second language to any article relating to India, broadly construed. He has been told to stop his POV-pushing, and knows he's being watched, but a topic ban, regardless of length, would send an even clearer message to him than just a message from me on his talk page. Thomas.W 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, your statement "which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago", tells that although you are involved in the article & discussions but you may not be aware of exact background, Telangana was not carved out of Andhra Pradesh along language lines but in contrast Andhra Pradesh is first non-Hindi state which got splitted and that was due to development issues (and not language).

Admins, my edits may be called POV but they are NPOV as can be seen throughout my discussion I have been patiently answering the points raised by other editors in ambit of WP policies and decorum. But other group seems to come one after one raising same points which I have answered already, then too I didn't lost my cool and urged the editor(s) to go through previous comments. Intrestingly, I have constantly been asked to produce proof from official sources while they are now relying on ambigous blog/news link. When they were not able to answer my points and logic they lost their cool and started abusing me (they also had coversation in Telugu and used words like stubborn to define me). In whole discussion I have been WP:Civil and tried to answer each and every objection. I have given numerous links and quoted Acts & Laws of India & Andhra Pradesh to show status of Hindi, English & other state language(s) but nobody seems to be looking at them and totally ignoring them. User has been removing data on AP and other articles while discussion was going on and that too without edit summary. Recently I have not tried to restore any of the removed content so I fail to understand how that mounts to POV push or edit-war.

I'll urge admins to closely go through the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and also look at postings of all editors involved on various other User Talk pages as there have been attempt of canvassing, campaigning & lobbying against me & my edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, the impression I get is of rather extreme bullying. The legal threats and threats of blocking are obvious violations of WP:BATTLE and despite a sudden retraction, under duress, of the threats, I am not convinced of the sincerity of said retractions. Jusdafax 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither am I. The unblock request looks to me like the verbatim what they need to say to get immediately unblocked, followed by a series of rants about someone else being the problem, and then another insincere repeat of the verbatim text to get unblocked. Not at all sincere and I think the disruption would continue if they were unblocked.--v/r - TP 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Faizhaider, you are in fact edit warring because you keep adding your preferred references although they have been challenged by several other users. All I can see on your part is synthesis (this does not state anything about the official status of any language) and edit warring about it . You are even being inconsistent in your editing since here and here you remove a statement that said that Urdu was in fact the co-offical language in AP while you keep pointing out that the AP public employment act will "still" be published in Urdu. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic bans

Faizhaider

After reviewing Faizhaider's contributions at the article Andhra Pradesh, the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and User talk:Faizhaider I conclude that Faizhaider is pushing a somewhat unclear agenda related to adding Urdu as one of the official languages in the current Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Regardless of the merit of sources provided by either side it has become evident that Faizhaider's edits to the article have become disruptive in a manner of edit warring, POV pushing and a lot of WP:IDHT resulting in even more disruption and needless drama. As it happens, discretionary sanctions following the WP:ARBIND ruling cannot be applied on Faizhaider because he was not notified of this possible type of enforcement while editing the article. While a block would be justified for edit warring I would like to seek a solution that may last longer than some two or three days. I therefore propose a topic ban as follows: For the period of one month, Faizhaider must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. This discussion serves as notification for discretionary sanctions in the ARBIND case enabling further action. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@De728631:, @Thomas.W: I'm not sure if you have seen recent conversation on Talk:Andhra Pradesh, but the situation seems to be more cooled-off and clear than 24 hrs ago as it is now clear from various sources that the confusion is not only at WP but it even engulfs legislators of AP. I'm sorry for miopic view & stand but I felt that long standing information on article was being removed (without any comment summary) in absence of any hard proof (may be due to POV push & bias). Now we have reached consensus to maintain status-quo on the article. So, I'll ask for reconsideration of topic ban.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 10:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Visakha veera

Visaka veera has probably overreacted in the recent dispute with Faizhaider but seeing this unblock request I fear he is simply walking the same road as Faizhaider, namely arguing ad nauseam that his sources are the one and only truth while playing down the issue that led to his block. This makes me agree with Judasfax and TParis that Vv's retraction of the legal threat may not at all be sincere. Provided that the indefinite block of Visaka veera is lifted following his latest request or within four weeks from now I propose a topic ban of the same nature as the one for Faizhaider: For one month after his being unblocked, Visaka veera must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. Any failure to abide by this restriction or will result in an indefinite block per WP:ARBIND sanctions. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Parabolooidal spamming passive-aggressive, sarcastic attempts to derail discussions, edit warring, and meatpuppetry

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

This user has repeatedly added comments of a sarcastic and passive-aggressive nature on multiple talk pages.

• They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here.

• Meatpuppetry here - attempting to recruit members of an otherwise uninvolved WikiProject.

• Edit warring here (reverted the page to their preferred version, then accused me of failing to verify consensus.)

• They made personal digs at me here and here, accusing me of inconsistency ("you edited page X but didn't make the same change to page Y" and "you added this page to category A but didn't add it to category B")

• Additional passive-aggressive comments here, here, here, and here.

• I explained this on the user's talk page here, which they responded to on an entirely different page here, claiming it was a threat, presumably because I mentioned that "disruptive editing may result in a suspension or ban." This demonstrates a lack of willingness to listen, which is why I feel that an administrator needs to be involved in order to correct the user's behavior.

Muffinator (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at each of the diffs in They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here. Each time, the material seems at least vaguely relevant. I don't see attempts to derail discussions. We needn't be concerned about passivity; I don't see aggressiveness or a worrying degree of sarcasm. I don't see behavior that needs to be "corrected". -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Parabolooidal's latest disruptive behavior is to remove the banners of (non-autism) projects that the user is not affiliated with, using misleading edit summaries and then demanding that the entire project get involved, as seen here and here. Muffinator (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Muffinator and the topic of autism

I am an involved editor. Muffinator seems to be adding his own personal wikiproject to talk pages based upon tenacious reasons, e.g. a source from a couple of scholars written decades after the subjects death. These additions have been questioned by multiple people on the talk pages, and on WP:BLPN. Muffinator does not seem to argue the reasons for inclusion, rather than the right to include his wikiproject. He makes personal attacks whilst stating that he is refusing to discuss. Whilst making those attacks, he complains about attacks against himself. I have pointed him towards WP:BURO, WP:DISCUSS and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. In this case I think we should be looking at WP:Boomerang in this case. Martin451 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the WikiProject banners themselves is already being discussed in multiple venues. I don't see the need to add it here too. The fact that you may agree with what side of the issue Parabolooidal sits on is no excuse for Parabolooidal's behavior. Martin, why do you insist on misrepresenting my statements and behavior? I have argued the reasons for inclusion multiple times; you just keep saying that I didn't. The first edit you mentioned is a warning about disruptive behavior made before the one on the user's talk page, not a personal attack. In the second HiLo48 calls me arrogant and stupid. That unambiguously is a personal attack. WP:Boomerang does not apply. Muffinator (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think calling another persons edits "childish" is not a personal attack? Martin451 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Again you're choosing to summarize my comment with the most negative interpretation possible. If you look at the comment as written, it is apparent that I was merely pointing out that I suspect the rationale of being sarcastic and not genuine. Muffinator (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the "meatpuppet" link which turned out to be a polite request for comment from psychology Wikipedians about this autism project. I am in agreement, this calls for a minor WP:Boomerang. Shii (tock) 02:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Psychology has a lot to do with autism. Hardly meat puppetry. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor, but my take on this is that Muffinator is attempting to set up wikiproject on autism as a social phenomenon but has failed to sufficiently distinguish autism as a social phenomenon from autism as a medical phenomenon and is swimming thus against the tide of a range of editors (including myself) with a long history of work enforcing WP:RS / WP:MEDRS. My suggestion is that Muffinator either switch to only working on what WP:RS / WP:MEDRS can be found for or recast the wikiproject and it's tools using terms that clearly place it outside of medicine. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Incoming boomerang in 5...4...3...2... Dusti 03:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Another involved editor here, who has found Muffinator quite confrontational and aggressive on this matter. I am one of many (obviously) who expressed concern over the unexplained addition of the Autism tag to article Talk pages. Despite the obviousness of this fact, at one stage he attempted to sweep aside my objections with a snide and mathematically incorrect comment that I was the only one possibly confused by the new tag, he had explained it to me, so the problem was solved. When I called him on this poor attitude and stupid statement, he called my post a personal attack and deleted it. Is the boomerang really on its way? I hope so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions: ban Muffinator from both (1) Adding Category:People with Asperger syndrome or Category:People on the autistic spectrum to biography articles and (2) Adding the Autism WikiProject banner to any article. Both behaviors are causing unnecessary disruption, and he has already invited hundreds of users to WikiProject Autism, any of whom could assist him with these tasks if they agreed with him at all. Shii (tock) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I would second that, in view of my short—but unpleasant—exchange with Muffinator on my (, ) and their (from to ) user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever interacted with Muffinator, but after reading through all this and the related talk pages that led to this, I have to agree that that a topic ban for her/him is appropriate. I also think that the topic ban should include the admonition that any breach(es) will lead to escalating blocks. Muffinator does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and needs to be given a clear, unambiguous warning that the community will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. - Nick Thorne 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the hundreds of users I have invited to the project were found through an indiscriminate look at the autistic/Asperger Wikipedian categories (plus a few who I suspect of being "interested in the topic"). It is obvious from my contribution history that I have been simply going through the list alphabetically and not attempting meatpuppetry. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia; if I have gotten sidetracked with issues like project banners, it's only because frivolous disputes feel like an interruption to me. Sometimes I only have time to either address the disputes or ignore them and work elsewhere, and either way I must invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY to do so. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(involved editor) As already outlined, Muffinator has been adding tags to articles that are tangentially related to autism. As well, this editor has declared that WP:MEDRS does not apply to High functioning autism as, in his/her view it is not a medical condition. . In that same discussion at the High functioning Autism talk page (s)he as declared that a secondary source in a peer reviewed journal is not a reliable source. As well, in that discussion (s)he claimed that Autism Speaks is a 'hate group'. This editor has, as well, been the subject of discussion at the medicine wikiproject, here. , these discussions were, again, about this editor's POV pushing that autism is not a medical condition. In this discussion at Talk:Autism Muffinator once more claims that autism is not a disorder but a 'harmless neurological variant' and that the DSM-5 is not a reliable source. In short, I do not think this user is here to build an encyclopedia, but is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and push a fringe POV that autism is not a medical disorder. I propose not just a ban on adding tags to articles but a topic ban for Muffinator from all autism related articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• All editors have opinions. I am not going to conceal what my opinions are on a talk page just because they are not WP:RS- or WP:NPOV-compliant. Notice that I did not ever remove High-functioning autism from WP:MED or delete any medicine-based sources, nor did I edit Autism Speaks to state that it is a hate group. In fact, the only edits I recall making to that page were a change from "charity" to "organization" with an edit summary pointing out that "hate group" would also be POV, and a suggestion to merge the page with Light It Up Blue. Also, I stated that "Inclusion in the DSM" is not a reliable source for making judgments that the DSM itself doesn't make (WP:OR, not that the DSM isn't a reliable source. Once again, my statements are being re-interpreted to fit another editor's opinion of me as a person. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at that WP Medicine talk page, and wow... he refuses to acknowledge even that the discussion is about him. Yes, having seen his viewpoint in action I would support a topic ban. Shii (tock) 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at that earlier. Support topic ban for Muffinator. (I'm completely univolved) DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to add another Support a topic-ban from autism at this time. I have to say that my interactions with Muffinator haven't been 100% negative, I can point to at least one case where they appeared to back off after sourcing was provided that didn't support their position, and I thought their general idea of starting a WikiProject Autism was productive, or at least has the potential to be. But that's swallowed up by their lack of acceptance of sourcing guidelines as they apply to this topic area, their characterization of Autism Speaks--one of the largest and most influential autism advocacy organizations--as a "hate group", disruptively confrontational attitude in discussions regarding this topic area, and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (see their contribs to their User page to see the "sworn enemy" counter they're keeping). Zad68 16:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although it wouldn't erase the page history, I am willing to delete the userbox altogether if the wikilink to WP:HUMOR (which has been there since the box's inception) isn't sufficient to point out that it is lighthearted hyperbole. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough about the subject to judge, but calling Autism Speaks a hate group doesn't seem to be all that out-there based on a quick search. So that in itself shouldn't raise any more red flags than e.g. calling the GOP a hate group (which we can all agree on, right?). Whether or not one's POV is righteous, however, does not affect whether one can push it. --NE2 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Muffinator may be acting in good faith and perhaps just needs some supervision to prevent disruption as happened now at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disability-related_articles#Making_this_page_into_a_guideline_without_community-wide_input.3F Parabolooidal (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• • The move of the disability guide was a misuse of WP:BOLD which I have acknowledged by putting my name in as supporting the proposal to move the page back. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for whatever length of time is necessary. I don't think Muffinator, as an SPA, is here to build an encyclopedia. I have not personally edited any of the topic-wide articles and so perceive myself as an uninvolved editor, but I have noted the editor's behavior via threads on WikiProject Medicine. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SPA is a hyperbolic accusation. I have demonstrated an interest in non-autism topics, and even if I hadn't, a narrow interest isn't the only criteria for SPA. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Muffinator, this discussion is over. If you want to appeal your topic ban, check out WP:UNBAN for your options. Shii (tock) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Muffinator, please be careful, this might be considered a violation of your topic ban. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Just as a note (not bearing on this one way or another), but editing in other topic areas to point at and say 'I'm not an SPA' is a very common tactic of SPAs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User Jim-Siduri is back as IP

User:Jim-Siduri, who was just blocked yesterday, is back editing via IP 108.184.188.64. IP contributions shows this is certainly his and the IP is fairly stable. Could we get a block on this IP as well, or possible page protection on his favorite targets? Woodroar (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP two months for now. Fut.Perf. ☼

One user, in the block discussion, recommended a ban. Since the editor appeared to be profoundly well-meaning but deeply ignorant, and unwilling to learn, a ban did not seem appropriate. If there is further block evasion (sock-puppetry), it might be necessary to consider a ban. As it is, he has been told that he can make a standard offer in six months. If the block evasion continues, that will be off the table. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This post to the help desk would appear to be the same user. SpinningSpark 09:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So, someone with the Siduri church has been busy on the commons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User conduct User:Supersaiyen312

I've tried to stand above it repeatedly, but yeah... this user's conduct of bad faith towards me is leaving me quite sour and annoyed. I wish for an administrator to evaluate the conduct of User:Supersaiyen312 at Talk:Johnson South Reef Skirmish#Casualties and losses per the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --Cold Season (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated in WP:PERSONAL...

• "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Check.
• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Check. --Cold Season (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, a personal attack does not matter to you? Oh jeez... and I've explicitly requested evidence, but no... so I can't even defend myself and you expect me to just take it, while you went on and on with it (you know you pushed), despite my request to comment on content. --Cold Season (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I had ignored your bad faith quickly at this point, then suddenly you decided to push me once again after it didn't went your way. Accusing me again with no explicit evidence or explanation and saying that it doesn't matter in one breath, what a load... Yet, you remove talk page comments, which include to evade scrutiny (for socking). This is clear. --Cold Season (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked how it was a POV that the numbers is a figure that Vietnam reported (which even the sources states). You decided to answers my question based on the editor and not the content, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove this fact and actually did, so you did hide this fact. --Cold Season (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are self-explanatory, that you did focus on contributor rather than content. Secondly, I removed numbers of Chinese losses and causulties, because this was uncited (or do you casually forget to mention this, I don't see you contest it); this is a non-issue that you try to spin into me having COI. On the other hand, you removed cited information while focusing on claiming that I had COI. --Cold Season (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) You made several attempts to discredit me with no evidence, which I requested. It was a comment on me rather than the content. This was right at the start, you made no attempt to be civil but to focus on the editor from the start . People tend to comment on editors if they have no strong basis on the content, and it was the case but you took it further by making it a point. (2) The source say "according to Vietnamese accounts", this is clear. I'm faithful to the source; you improperly want to combine several sources that state different things. (3) I did not remove a Chinese source about which specific Vietnamese ships had sunk, because both the citation and information is in the body of the article (and isn't something to put in an infobox). So keep accusing me of removing cited information (to unjustly accuse me of COI), since I've once again proven that you're wrong. I guess the easy way for you is to simply yell COI (without evidence) instead. (4) The burden of proof does not lie with me when I remove uncited information. Even though you like to discredit me by saying that I'm removing uncited information (heck, I even had to defend from your criticism that I replaced uncited information with cited information , because you are blindly set on commenting on me as an editor). (5) If your false accusation of me truly didn't matter to you, then you shouldn't have brought it up firstly, shouldn't have continued bringing it up secondly, or make it your main focus to try "win" a discussion thirdly. However, your "it doesn't matter" cry is essentially you trying to shut me up and force me to take your continued abuse and unsubstantiated accusations, while continuing your bad faith behavior in the same breath. --Cold Season (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And even now you are sneakily attacking me, expecting me to take it while professing sanctimonious innocence (just like you did when you were a sock ). --Cold Season (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY is applicable. Anyway, I didn't use it against you to win a content dispute; I used it to highlight the irony of you assuming bad faith without evidence on my character versus your past. My statements are substantiated and truthful. --Cold Season (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The user also has the habit of removing talk page comments (that he/she does not like)—as was the case here (in this case to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, yet scrutinize my edits with no diffs provided)—which the user did often before but also when the user was still a sock puppet (in case there's doubt about the sock connection ). --Cold Season (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that I can substantiate my comments without lacking evidence. You are repeatedly accusing me (and I tried to ignore it as evidenced by that talk page, but you don't know when to stop commenting on editor rather than content) and removing my talk page comments (similar behavior during your socking period). Also to your earlier comment, the content discussion is not over, since I've requested comments from the three relevant Wikiprojects (but that's not why we are here). --Cold Season (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The admin can see for himself/herself how often you tried to push me (leading to this), while I kept mentioning to comment on content instead. You also wouldn't meet the criteria for WP:CLEANSTART by the way, because it's shown above that you have still have your old behavior (such as removing talkpage comments) and evading scrutiny. --Cold Season (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not some random accusation without evidence; it is a fact that you socked. My main point was to highlight the sanctimoniousness of this ordeal (that is, that you socked and give bad faith to those who oppose you without evidence). And still... You removed a talk page comment to try avoid scrutiny; it should be reinstated. --Cold Season (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet, you still display the same behavior as then (despite given a second chance), removing my talk comments. Notwithstanding that you were out of line when you made it a point to focus on your unsubstantiated allegation of COI rather than the content. --Cold Season (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not planning on meeting again, not unfounded bad-faith'd people, that's for sure. --Cold Season (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm blunt, yes, but not without a a ground to stand. You even admitted that it was in bad faith and that you will continue with it (second comment in this discussion). --Cold Season (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of you do realise that if you continue your spat here, no admin will take it seriously. Both of you should just drop it now, and ignore each other moving forward. No one is going to be sanctioned for blunt commentary. Both of you are showing combatative attitudes and neither is looking good, so just back away, cool off and go do something else. Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What I want is that this user (1) quit his bad faith attitude or clearly demonstrate the accusations by providing explicit diffs and reasons as requested (because as of now, the user has supported the false accusations by saying that I'm removing uncited information); (2) stop hammering on about it in my face, while trying to shut me up from responding but hypocritically still accusing me without evidence in the same sentence (e.g. "you have COI, but that doesn't matter" and the user knows this is pushing me); (3) stop removing talk page comments altogether; and (4) stop attacking editor rather than comment on content in a talkpage discussion. I do not find this unreasonable. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are simply avoiding scrutiny. Mentioning that you have received a second chance from socking is not a personal attack, since this is substantiated and truthful. You were also called out during you socking phase for removing talkpage comments, and this is also applicable to my comments on that article's talk page (you did it to others too with your latest account Supersaiyen312, so you never left that behavior behind from your socking phase).--Cold Season (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Both of you shut up now. Supersaiyen312, WP:COI is when someone has something to gain monetarily from editing an article. It is not whatever the hell is going on on this page that I cannot even wrap my head around because of this pigheaded dispute. Cold Season, stop being a dick about the fact that Supersaiyen312 was previously blocked for something that is not related to this dispute. I recommend that these two be banned from this article and from ever being near each other again just to save the rest of the community time and energy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you don't, since the article is not the issue here and this wouldn't be here if it was just content-related; it could have been on any article and it would still have the same outcome. And it's quite clear that we have no intention to be near eachother after this. Also, your characterization of WP:COI is wrong by the way. --Cold Season (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I simplified. COI is when someone has a vested interest in the article topic which I doubt is the case here. Both of you need to stop being at each other's necks and editing this article all together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's already over. And yes, I agree with your proposal, this argument went no where. Nevermind, it looks like the argument is continuing after all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The argument is over. This is obviously not going to end so I'm not going to continue it. This argument is going nowhere. I'm removing my own comments now, which I'm allowed to do. If anybody wants to see to full argument, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=620989439#User_conduct_User:Supersaiyen312 Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User conduct: Hoops gza making bad faith reports to WP:UAA

I am not sure why, but this editor has made a spate of reports recently (within the past day or so) to WP:UAA that had no merit, even going so far as to report accounts with no edits - , , , , , , and. This report was questionable, as was this one, which was reported as promotional, but that editor wasn't making promotional edits, just edits to basketball related articles. This was reported ("without much doubt") as promotional for Winston cigarettes, yet that editor was nowhere near that topic. He even went so far as to report a Wikimedia Foundation member! Then there are these "Osama" related reports - , , , , and, which these accounts either have no edits, or fewer than five in as many years.

I think this conduct is disruptive to the project and just wastes the time of the admins who patrol that page because they then have to investigate the editor(s) reported in order to validate the report. As you can see from the first diff I posted, a lot were declined based on the fact that they didn't violate the username policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would you characterize these reports as "bad faith"? Bad faith doesn't mean "I think it was wrong", it's much more akin to "malicious" or "trolling". He nominated a lot of Nazi-themed account names, and that's hardly bad faith. It might not show good judgment, but it's almost certainly good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel there has to be clear evidence as to the validity of the report. In these cases, it was (mostly) a "blanket" report with no thought given as to checking if the account made any edits (promotional or not) to determine if the username was indeed against policy. It certainly wasn't AGF on the part of the editor(s) being reported, IMO.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he himself failed to assume good faith. But I think he honestly believed the usernames were against policy. His judgment was poor, and his understanding of policy is, at best, flawed. He should probably take a voluntary break from UAA before someone suggests a mandatory one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• See also ANI April 2014 where activity concerning Nazis and creating redirects (two topics) by Hoops gza was briefly discussed. It appears that there is too much frenetic activity without a commensurate degree of understanding. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• We all make mistakes, but his volume is such that he seems to be swamping the noticeboard with a lot of pointless reports. Not all, by any means, but a lot. I think he should be strongly encouraged to slow down and be much more careful. This reporting of User:KLans (WMF) was rather bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I was brought here by a ping on DeltaQuad's talk page based on a (talk page stalker) comment I made in regards to the fact that I would create most of these accounts as an account creator through ACC as AGF. Looking over this user's talk page, and seeing that this has been an ongoing problem for over three months now, I'm not sure that AGF still applies to this user continuously making this same mistake over and over and over and tl;dr... I saw that at least three or four administrators has politely asked the user to take a break from reporting to UAA, and it appeared that two months ago the user did. Then, out of the blue so to speak, this happened. Other than this difficulty with UAA, the user seems to be mostly a half decent (albeit new and naive) editor, and my personal thoughts is that a simple topic ban would hopefully resolve the issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed. Some of these are understandable; an obvious reference to Hitler is obvious. But many of these are egregiously bad reports. Anyone with "KL" as their initials is going to draw scrutiny? What's next, a user can't name him/herself after their boat because it might have the initials "SS" in it? And calling "Winstonisthebest" clearly promotional? Facepalm Perhaps a break is in order here. --Kinu /_c 19:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reported usernames of Nazis because they are highly offensive. I believe that those usernames should be blocked on sight. Am I missing something? I will refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts that are currently active until this is resolved. - Hoops gza (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. Even once the ridiculousness of your filings has been pointed out to you, on multiple venues including this one, you're still insisting that Wikimedia employee Kristen Lans is a "Nazi" with a "highly offensive" name? WTF. 87.115.180.61 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because you are biased against the Nazis doesn't mean they are against the username policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? Hmm, this is starting to get weird. First, full disclosure: I'm "biased against the Nazis," too. ArcAngel, surely I've misunderstood you: you do understand that any username that actually does suggest a Nazi affiliation is against our policy for disruptive or offensive usernames -- right? The question before us is these rather imaginary, Nazi-usernames-everywhere issue -- right? I'm sure that's so. Hoops gza, as for you, I don't see what kind of "resolution" you're looking for: you should take this as a warning to "refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts" now and henceforth, and stop wasting people's time. If you don't, you'll just be topic banned for lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this area, and surely you don't want that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that policy, thanks for clarifying that. The way Hoops worded his statement made it seem like he was Nazi-biased. It just seems like any name or combination of initials with a historical Nazi tie he was reporting, even if it is/was genuinely a current person's name (as in the case of the WMF member). I aldo don't think he should be allowed to warn editors directly if there is no issue (as in this case, where a 'crat stepped in and said the name was fine).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I've stated numerous times in talk page messages to Hoops, please also refrain from reporting accounts that have never been used or have not edited in years, unless they are blatantly obvious violations (eg. a user name of "FuckYou" or something of the sort). Connormah (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: We also do not allow usernames to be named after bands or musical artists. @Shawn in Montreal: I need some more clarity on what I may report. There are admins who have declined the usernames that actually do suggest a Nazi affiliation on the grounds that they are stale or have not edited. There are also two very close variations on Osama bin Laden's name (changing a single letter in the name, for instance) that were declined for similar reasons. Who cares if these are stale, they are grievous violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Connormah, you declined various Adolf Hitlers. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: I see nothing in WP:USERNAME that explicitly states that that usernames that contain names of bands or musical artists are disallowed. I suppose they would be covered under the "groups" provision, but in my view usernames such as Vanhalenisabest, or Journeyrocks are not in violation of the policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning usernames that have not been used in a long time, they really shouldn't be reported to WP:UAA even if they are egregious policy violations. Such abandoned accounts do no harm whatsoever to Misplaced Pages, and reporting them just makes more work for the admins that deal with username issues (who should otherwise be dealing with current username issues). As the WP:UAA instructions prominently display, "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined." If you disagree with those instructions, it would be better to get consensus to change them rather than repeatedly violate them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we not be username nazis here, please? --NE2 22:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User violating WP:No original research

Richard Harvey insists on inserting File:Redensignmonserrat.jpg into List of British flags. This image was uploaded as the sole edit by it's uploader without any sources. Richard Harvey argued in the file's DR that since Montserrat is a member of the Red Ensign Group that means they must have one, but that was inconclusive. In fact, another British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena does not have a local red ensign even though it is a member of that organisation, so using the organisation's membership as the sole source even when it does not directly say Montserrat has a red ensign is inappropriate. In their most recent re-insertion of this image, Richard Harvey added even more original research by claiming Montserrat is simply entitled to a red ensign (instead of them being granted) and that they have an unofficial one already. There are no sources of any sort to support that this flag exists in any manner, several which infer the exact opposite, and it therefore violates policy and can not be on that article. I am asking for an admin to remove the image. Fry1989 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First off please note that I am not the uploader of the image to the article and I am neutral in its usage and have not violated the 'Neutral Research' policy. I have been caught up in this as a Reviewer, whilst attempting to authenticate the flags validity. This is purely a content dispute that should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, as I advised Fry1989 on my Talk page. However it seems he prefers to use Administrators to achieve his aims. There are several images in the article that are unofficial, but kept as useful, this image is no different. I have previously added a supporting reference from the red ensign group website, which officially states that Montserrat is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and entitled to fly a Red Ensign on their ships. I have today reverted a deletion of the image by Fry1989 and reworded the entry to advise it is an example image that has been uploaded by Alexandersosx. It should be noted that Fry1989 has attempted twice to have the image deleted by Admins at Wiki commons to prevent its use in the article; and is currently attempting again to have the previous Admins decisions reversed. On that deletion request I have stated my own interpretation of the authority to use a red ensign (in the reference from the Red Ensign Website):- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. There is also this statement on the British Government website which states the same:-

• The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers.

• The registers are operated by:

• the UK
• the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey)
• UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands)

• Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour).

I am therefore believe the use of the image in the article is valid. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These points raised by Richard Harvey were already discussed in the file's DR, and there is nothing that supports the idea that being a member of the Red Ensign Group automatically means that a member has their own red ensign. As I stated, Saint Helena is a member but they do not have their own red ensign, they use the undefaced British red ensign. Jersey is also a member but they were only granted their own red ensign in 2010 which supports that red ensigns must be granted or adopted by order. There is no evidence that Montserrat has ever been granted or adopted a local red ensign. FOTW is considered a reliable source and they do not show Montserrat having a red ensign, and neither do other trusted flag websites. I can't find this flag on any flag shop website, I can't even find any photos of unofficial ones. There is simply ZERO sources that this flag exists in any capacity. It is original research that is completely unsourced and most likely the imagination of the uploader. It can not be used according to Misplaced Pages:No original research

As for Richard Harvey's false bad faith allegations, let me make it clear I am not trying to get the file deleted to prevent it's use on Misplaced Pages, rather it is the opposite. It keeps getting kept in that DR because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting it on Misplaced Pages articles without sources. I have stated that I will be more than happy to create an SVG version of the image, should even a single source supporting that this flag exists ever arise, but there are none at this time. The file is fake that is pretending to be real and is therefore deliberately misleading which is a valid reason for deletion on Commons. The outcome of the DR is irrelevant however, because Misplaced Pages has it's own policies that apply to this situation. The image can not be used at this time. Fry1989 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a brief note that although Montserrat was permitted to have and use a Red Ensign per the permissions that were granted to it by virtue of it being part of the REG, you are correct that the existence of a Montserrat version of the flag is in doubt. In all actuality, ships registered to Montserrat would only fly the standard non-defaced Red Ensign. I've just spent the last 15min or so looking around on the net and have not found any reliable source that indicates the existence of a Montserrat defaced Red Ensign. I would agree that the image cannot be used at this time until a reliable corroborative source has been found. Blackmane (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been having a poke around trying to see if I can get a WP:RS for the flag. Tentatively, I've so far found that an image from a non-RS site (it's on eBay) that corroborates Richard Harvey's view that Montserrat does indeed have a red ensign. I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find. At this point, I'd put it up for FFD and see what others come up with. Blackmane (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

eBay has many imaginary and fake things, that does not support that this flag is real in any capacity, especially if that is the only sole image that can be found of it outside of the JPEG that was uploaded to Commons. Fry1989 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The image should be removed. Fry1989 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, after I spent some time looking around, the only conclusion was that the image I found was for a self made ensign. One would think that if the flag is as important as it seems then finding a real image would not be so hard.

List of people known as The Great

An IP refuses to accept that several persons they have added to the list do not qualify. Now that IP has vandalized my user page. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 223.204.35.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The last edit on the article talk page was in February 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• CF's user page and the article semi-protected for a week, and IP's blocked for a week. I have no idea if the IP's content is OK or not - that's for the article talk page - but if they are not going to discuss, and are going to vandalize, then I guess it isn't going into the article, at least for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. That list gets a lot of reversions because people don't realize it's specifically for people who are called "the Great", not great people. There was no such claim in the three articles in question. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User SecretJournalsofCongress

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

Someone needs to look at the Talk pages of Talk:Hagia Sophia. This user, although having been asked to calm down, is producing completely OTT edits there. His/her words seem to be racist and religionist. Myrvin (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow..... just wow. It seems we have an anti Semite, Holocaust denier and, well, other stuff. Serious case of WP:COMPETENCE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that he is above all an anti-Catholic troll (if I understood well what he wrote :-)). Anyway, on that page what he is writing is definitely OT. Alex2006 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe you are right. Nonetheless, serious competence issues. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So this user is Misplaced Pages:Community portal/Opentask? Might as well ignore until he starts editing mainspace, and then we need not wait to block. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued incivility by Knight of BAAWA

User:Knight of BAAWA was blocked for 36 hours on July 11 for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour." Since his return, he has continued this behavior, including not-so-stealthily using the same insult that contributed to his temporary block (statist).

— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I am certainly seeing some failure to assume good faith. This sort of behavior can be very disruptive in contentious area. While I personally don't want to take admin action in this area due t lack of knowledge of the surrounding subject and discussion perhaps another admin more versed in the dispute can take a closer look?

Callanecc may have some perspective being the prior admin to block this user. Chillum 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IP insists on adding country identification for places like Chicago, Illinois

The IP user 203.217.29.182 shows a strong and long-standing pattern of insisting on adding country identification to the names of U.S. places such as Chicago, Illinois, despite being repeatedly informed of relevant Misplaced Pages consensus indicating otherwise as recorded at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation / WP:USPLACE. The user has been warned repeatedly (e.g. at User talk:203.217.29.182) and previously blocked for such behavior, but seems to just insist that the practice is appropriate and is continuing the behavior, including such an edit today. The user also appears to have tried to disguise such action using a misleading edit summary. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP. Why would we omit the country name just because the United States is involved? --John (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Commonname, utility, redundancy. State names (Georgia excepted) are unique signifiers while the national name is not. In other words, it's because Auburn, Oregon is a unique placename while Auburn, United States is a useless one, and Auburn, Oregon, United States fails all relevant naming conventions. --erachima talk 18:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with the IP, but naming conventions are solely about the name of an article, not how it's referred to in other articles (unless otherwise specified). And the IP's change of Chicago, Illinois to Chicago, Illinois is just plain silly. --NE2 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Moratorium_on_WP:USPLACE_change_discussions, its parents, or its children. This is a place for administrator attention, which seems like a very limited scope problem, discussion of which should not require discussing place names at all. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning behind adding the United States to American places, when AFAIK we're (for example) excluding United Kingdom from British places. We need consistancy (if possible) for including/excluding sovereign states, in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is different from WP:USPLACE, which governs page names, not page contents. Excluding the country from an article is an oversight if unintentional, and downright disruptive if intentional, because we are an international encyclopedia. Administrator attention has been attracted, and administrator tools will be used to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK when people intentionally violate it. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that country names in these instances are unnecessary and merely add clutter, but that is almost beside the point. I think the matter has been brought to ANI for administrator attention because we have an editor who 1) persistently makes a kind of edit that is routinely reverted; 2) ignores admonitions of various editors to discontinue that kind of edit; 3) has already been blocked once for the same kind of edit and 4) has now at least once misrepresented the nature of his edits in the edit summary. JohnInDC (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct. It would be very foolish to ask for admin action against them. --John (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is correct; country name should be included. GD, for British places something like 'X, England' or 'Y, Wales' is preferable to 'Z, United Kingdom'. GiantSnowman 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm merely recommending 'across the board' consistancy. Either we include the sovereign state, or we don't. I'm not picky about which, just wish them to be consistant. For example: Cardiff, Wales is alright, as long as we have Toronto, Ontario or Austin, Texas, etc.GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Consistencies are foolish hobgoblins. --Jayron32 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been like a month since the IP did any of that work. It is funny to see the country name listed for cities that are globally known. Chicago, Illinois, USA - as opposed to Chicago, Illinois, Luxembourg, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It has not been a month. One of those edits was today. But I'm starting to think those edits generally pale in comparison to about 15 new edits by Nyttend since this conversation began here. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why's that then? --John (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I would say it's because - to my eyes - an IP was blocked for adding what seemed to be cluttery, inessential information to articles on the strength of a policy (WP:CONTEXTLINK) that does not, on its face, demand such precision; and, when the matter was brought to ANI, Nyttend's response was to routinely restore the edits (and more) for which the IP was blocked. Now, perhaps this is all ancient water under the bridge for those who've been with the project from its inception (and who suffered through the debates) and to them the proper course of action is obvious, but I'm not exactly a novice, and the answer is not quite so clear to me, and it is - well, dispiriting to be told (albeit indirectly) that I threaten being "disruptive" by trying to reason through this. JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason I said that is that those edits by Nyttend appear to be responsive to this conversation and are reverting the actions of several editors on this subject without waiting for the discussion to unfold and consensus to be clarified (and because they include the helpful clarification that New York, New York is in the United States, for those readers of articles about American professors who might not be aware of that). And because many of the edit summaries include the imperative command "do not remove", which looks like an attempt to use forceful language to achieve what cooperative consensus building might not. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unpersuaded by the argument that "United States" needs to be added after the first mention of any U.S. state, or "Canada" after the name of any Canadian province (and so on down the line) because "not all readers are from country X". The issue isn't nation-centrism but rather whether a particular place is likely to be so unfamiliar to English-speaking readers that it demands further disambiguation. In many, many cases the additional information is just so much clutter, particularly since the state name will be wikilinked the first time through and anyone who is not sure where to find "California" or "New South Wales" can easily click through to find out. JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to make such a proposal at the appropriate place. Bear in mind that our articles have to make sense in print where there are no links. --John (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That is why I noted above that administrative tools will be used, if necessary, to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK and to ensure that intentional disruption be prevented. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may do that, but I'm not sure where. Not under article naming conventions, where country names are already (sensibly) not required in article names. And though WP:CONTEXTLINK is cited above as demanding country names to accompany state / province names, it strikes me as anything but definitive, noting merely generally that "an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part" and using as an example, not (e.g.) "Austin, Texas, United States" but rather Arugam Bay. I appreciate that the views here are strongly held but (so far) am not clear on where this particular protocol has been established. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTLINK not only says nothing explicitly about this issue, it also provides an example of appropriate phrasing in which "Moscow" is not clarified with a country identifier. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this matter is not going to result in administrative action, it will shortly be closed here and archived. Before that happens, I would like advice about where to continue discussion of this issue. To my eyes (and evidently those of a few other editors as well) neither style or nor Misplaced Pages policy mandates the reflexive, invariant inclusion of country names alongside states or provinces or other well-known political subdivisions. And - if, well, style or policy does, I'd like to know where it is set forth so that I can make the case that it shouldn't. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• What I mainly want to know is why @Nyttend: has gone thru reverting a whole bunch of months old edits of mine... --Jayron32 22:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Without delving into my personal opinion on the subject, I echo the concerns above about Nyttend's interpretation of CONTEXTLINK, which states only that an article should "include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part", without explicitly noting that it must be a country. Illinois is a broader geographical area of which Chicago is a part, so taking a strict constructionist's view of the policy, the country does not seem to be needed. This seems like a content dispute, not a cut and dry, black and white policy question. Certainly, no administrative tools should be involved in enforcing one side or the other, as consensus has not been reached (at least if it has no indication has been noted on this page) on whether the country should be included. As such, it seems the dispute resolution process ought to be used. Go Phightins! 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:151.56.11.27 and "The List of non existent recording" (sic) - Advice sought

User talk: Brian Joseph Morgan and I have been discussing the behaviour of the above name IP editor in adding recordings to the "Recordings" sections of opera articles. After being challenged to produce evidence that these recordings exist, and with no reply forthcoming and based on our own research of likely sources, many of these have been removed from the articles themselves. But today, this editor added "The List of Non existent recording" (sic) to his/her/their "Talk" page.

Just a few minutes ago, another recording was added to the "List" but not to the article. A warning has been given. How do we proceed? Keep giving warnings? Is it legitimate for any editor to use his/her own Talk page to create fictional lists of this sort? Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyper Criticus, possibly another sock of Jazzerino

Since creating their account today, Hyper Criticus has been making tedious syntax changes solely to articles I've edited most recently, which I'm assuming they've gotten from my contributions list. First edit, second edit, third edit, fourth edit, and so on. This change of theirs to another article I had edited minutes prior to their edit was reverted by another editor, although Hyper Criticus did not react with the same hostility as they had when attacking me here and here. Dan56 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The frustration they express and the nature of their changes (frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes to articles I've contributed to significantly or just simply recent ones shown up at my contributions page) suggest another in a series of socks that have been popping up over the past week or so since Harmelodix was blocked as a result of this investigation, the most recent being EastCoaster007 and CountGramula. Either way, admin intervention will be helpful; I don't feel like getting into an edit war with an editor I have no faith will be responsive to any serious discussion about their edits. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, so your prose sucks donkey balls... You Americans come up with such funny expressions. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Your fans all thought you were an American by now, Drmies. You can come up with funny expressions any time you want. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I have the debt to prove I'm at least culturally part-American. But Cullen328, expressions like "put out" and "brown-nosing", who could come up with that? Or that master of all bad words, "mother******"? Whereas I was criticized in some other forum for saying "ridiculousest", as if thereby I lowered the bar for linguistic civility and ambitiousness... Drmies (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• OK, I was going to block but good old Kww beat me to it. Thanks Kevin. As for the "frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes", well, I'm sorry, but Jazzerino is, on occasion, a very decent writer, and those changes, right or wrong, aren't frivolous. I hope Kevin doesn't use mass rollback. Anyway, this one's blocked, and we wait for the next one. Take it easy Dan, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Robin Williams, please

Could any free editors keep their eyes on Robin Williams for the next bit? Not sure if pre-emptive RPP is a good idea, but I'll have a weather eye out myself and will send it there if necessary. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI the article has been placed under full protection for 12 hrs due to concerns about the rate of editing. --NellieBly (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly no new information at this point. CNN is already into its loop of reporting the same story over and over, filling the gaps with quick interviews of those who knew him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Neotarf

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

The above user has been adding in section breaks on a concluded conversation in order to change the meaning and context of the discussion. I was revert by User:SarekOfVulcan and I posted on his page and requested he self revert. Neotarf not only added another section break but it was a WP:POINTy one for sure. It's been a shit fest the last week but Neotarf was warned about changing section headers at arbcome case request where he told that editor to gyf or Go fuck yourself. User:John came and posted ] and Neotarf responded ] wanting to recall him. There are some serious disruption and point issues here as well as a failure to get the point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Neotarf has been issued the required notification]. I'd like to point out that I followed the instructions in the bright yellow box that takes up about 1/4 of the screen that explicitly tells me I must do so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what all the upset is about other than it involves naughty words. I complained about a section header that had some very nasty words including a racial slur and that because it was a section heading it was showing up in watchlists and recent changes.

While complaining about this the section heading accidentally ended up in my edit summary. Another user came to my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#You_who.3F) to let me know about this so I could remove it under WP:RD2. About 5 days later Neo shows up to complain about us talking behind his back?

This whole issue is confusing and I am not sure what the issue are but if he is going to use racial slurs as part of a debate then Neo can at least keep them out of section headings which end up in edit summaries. Chillum 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf is modfying the comments and putting breaks in the middle at random points of the conversation and changing the context. As I explained to Sarek when the conversation is ongoing there is not problem but when it's concluded we don't need section breaks at random by someone trying to be a revisionist. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is a completely different section header issue. I thought it was related because I just got a message on my talk page from him about a section heading. Chillum 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chillum, Yes, he keeps trying to change or add subtitles, seemingly at random and in this case add them in the middle of now concluded portions of the thread thus changing the context of yours and my comments. I have no problems adding those when the conversation is ongoing but the actions behind aren't for convenience it's a passive aggressive attempt to change the context. It's also the overall context of their behavior, John came through asking if they might need to take a break and that some of their behaviors were passive aggressive, Neotarf has responded as you yourself noted in an irrational manner like they did on your page. They demanded to be able to start a recall on John because they accused them of personal attacks. This whole clusterfuck was because of neotarfs inability to understand context of wording and incessant forum shopping. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically ] and later reverted by Sarek who then self reverted ] and then the really passive aggressive one with nice wording ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out more bad faith and disruption by User:Neotarf]. User:John transplanted a scattered discussion from his page to neotarf's page. Neotarf has now accused this admin of "Signature forgery" and struck both John's comment and my comment. I reverted this and advised they may remove completely but they may not strike another editors comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki coding G.A. but usually especially when a thread is about modifying anothers comments, don't modify, especially in this situation I don't expect Neotarf to react well. I hit the dumb link and was trying to thank you btw and I mistakenly thanked Neotarf, that was not my intention lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Omnipaedista

I just want to denounce for improper behavior by this user. He revert my insertions 1 Then he insert it again by himself 2 --Melenc (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This "denouncement" seems to be a pointy retaliation for my opening WP:ANI#User:Melenc a while ago . Melenc has been been making personal attacks against me and has been inserting false/inaccurate information in articles during the past few months rudely ignoring my attempts at explaining academic standards and policy to them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For the currently topic do you have any explanation? --Melenc

I just try to be calm with the user, but he attacks me and reverts my comments from his talk page.. so how I can communicate with..? (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite their previous personal attacks , I did reply in good faith to their last comment on my talk-page User_talk:Omnipaedista/Archive_1#tetra-. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check their talk-page history and edit log . I have reviewed all of them. I estimate that most of their contributions here were either reverted for violating some guideline or policy or needed to be modified for the same reasons. This editor simply refuses to engage in dialogue. They instead keep creating a mess in articles related to Greek etymology by removing reliably sourced information, overlinking, or adding inaccurate information that needs to be corrected by others (see my latest comments on their talk page). This is getting quite time-consuming. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am open to explanations, i' m bidding on wikipedia, but user not allows any other user to communicate with him at his talk page....When I insert an atymology or a wikilink, he revert it and then put it back again by himself.1 2 --Melenc (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is needless to say that assigning the blame for the lack of communication to me is grossly inappropriate and that the phrase "I just try to be calm with the user" is downright patronizing. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hilsea on 2014 Sarcelles riots

Hilsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made edits that are unsourced and POV on 2014 Sarcelles riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He claims the information he added are important, yet he does not source his claims. He also claims that the information he deletes are unverified, but it is in the article's sources. He has also deleted (perhaps accidentally) a source.

1st set of edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620228985&oldid=619761541

I reverted his 1st set of edits, but he made a 2nd set:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620691324&oldid=620329696

I have not yet reverted the 2nd set of edits. --Article editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Hilsea is dismissing any sources that disagree with his version of events as "unverified", e.g. . 129.78.68.1 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

These issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. The article is currently a mess. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Article editor and Hilsea: Seems to be a content dispute. There is some debate over whether the quote "Death to the Jews" was uttered. The quote must be included, also should be included are the questions raised over it. See talk page for my suggestion. As to the Berlin incident, that seems to have no relation with the article. Kingsindian (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection

Banned user Russavia has been editing Misplaced Pages at a dozen articles, using multiple proxies. To prevent this kind of disruption, I would like the following articles and pages to be given temporary semi-protection:

• Misplaced Pages:Files for upload
• Líneas Aéreas Suramericanas
• Dassault Falcon 7X
• Juan Falconí Puig
• Mauricio Rodríguez Múnera
• SAEREO
• Martinair
• Icaro Air
• TAME
• Copa Airlines Colombia

There's even a bit of disruption from Russavia at WP:RPP, ironically, with the guy saying "fuck off binksternet" for good measure.
I know I'm supposed to notify a user who I am discussing at ANI but this guy is using throwaway proxies, and he clearly knows what is going on around here. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting WP:FFU would be counter productive, as new users and IP'a are the people who are meant to use it to request uploads.... --Mdann52talk to me! 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: is now semi-protected for 3 days. How will IP editors be able to request files to be uploaded during this time? 122.52.157.88 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gfoley4: Please consider unprotecting WP:FFU. Lots of IPs request files for upload and they need to be able to continue doing this. As an example, I took a look at the first 20 requests at Misplaced Pages:Files for upload/August 2014, and out of those, 20% had been placed by an IP. The remaining 80% requests were made by users with accounts, but presumably some of them weren't autoconfirmed yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection might be acceptable, but this blanket reverting of IP edits (not even confirmed yet by a CU to be a ban evading sock) really isn't good - every edit reverted by Binksternet has been a good edit that improved each and every article, it just seems to be such a monumental waste of time and effort for all concerned to go around reverting edits, then someone else following behind re-reverting so as to 'take responsibility' for the edit.

There has to be a better long term solution than this endless nonsense, surely. Nick (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket disruption

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

Several times I have asked Hell in a Bucket to stay off my talk page. However he continued to edit my talk page, this time adding an f-bomb. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad asked him to stop, however he continued to stalk and edit my talk page . Again, I made a request for him to stay off my talk page. , however he continues to make edits to the page. . Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior? —Neotarf (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see ] the existing thread and the reasons why these edits were made. I'd like to point out that for the second time User:Neotarf has failed to notify of an ANI thread as required. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket, you were pinged by the notification system, if you didn't get notified, how did you get here so fast? —Neotarf (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As the disruption seems to have stopped for the moment, I am withdrawing the request. —Neotarf (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As a piece of advice from past experience, your request that he stay off the page generally isn't relevant and can in fact work against you as it demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in normal discussion-based problem solving. You can delete his comments as quickly and summarily as you want, but unless there has been an interaction ban Hell's still permitted to post on your talk page if he follows the same standards of conduct that apply on every other talk page. --erachima talk 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I give pretty good advice when you actually read it huh? I would like to point out the disruption stopped because Neotarf actually started following the WP:TPG which has been a rather large issue with Neotarf and encourage users to read the Neotarf thread that still needs admin attention including the passive aggressive nature of their behavior, markedly regarding their sadness about my life mentioned on bishonen page and ani notices etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erachima: Actually, if a user requests that you refrain from editing their page it is expected that whoever that is requested of follow this request, required notifications for AN, ANI, Arbcom, etc, aside. An interaction ban is not required. However, a request to refrain from posting on another editor's talk page does not cover edits of existing text to that talk page, which is a rather grey area. Rather than further heat up the situation, I recommend that HiaB refrain from further edits to Neotarf's page as it serves little purpose beyond stirring up hornets. Blackmane (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I am not posting there further except in the course of encyclopedia business, ie warning and required notices. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated, Blackmane, I disagree. The judgment is invariably made based on post content with no regard for whether the talk page owner liked the posts being on "their" page, refusal to communicate is commonly held as an exacerbating rather than mitigating factor in disputes, and userspace and civility guidelines do not support your interpretation. --erachima talk 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOBAN: If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. Failure to do so would be uncivil, and a block would be expected for a repeat offender. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I knew it was noted somewhere, it just didn't come to mind where that was. ercahima, users have a great deal of leeway on how they user the space provided for their account (I won't say their space as it belongs to the foundation). Userspace and civility guidelines are not violated unless there is recalcitrant refusal to communicate with all users for no reason. In this case, Neotarf has asked HiaB not to post to their page, which they haven't. However HiaB is fulfilling the unspoken requirement, as they've said, that official and admin board notifications are an exception to this. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Above, Neotarf asks "Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior?". The answer is yes. All that is needed is for Neotarf to stop adding fuel to the fire—stop and all the drama will stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also "A pox on both your houses" blocks in the tool chest. I say this to both disputants, knock it off. I almost think it's time to revive the "If you bring a frivolous AN* complaint, you will be summarily blocked for 36 hours" proposal. Hasteur (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. Neotarf's personal heat:light ratio has been above 1 for quite a while now. It might do them good to have an enforced break. --John (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf - It's tough to get behind you when you misrepresent the situation. HiB didn't 'drop the f bomb', he quoted you. And perhaps you also need to read NewYorkBrad's comments and not just focus on the parts where NYB is talking about HiB.--v/r - TP 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, I'd like to point out I'm happy to drop my own stick but User:Neotarf has to stop trying to manipulate the situation and drop theirs. My only interactions at this point have been to enforce pedia policy and I'm perfectly happy to let this be a thing in the past if I don't have to see the forum shopping and continued accusations of racism, misogyny and whatever else floats into their thought process. I've been very up front with people that I do not have those issues and since the first I've been up front that the accusation was a large part of the issue. The passive aggressive lamentations need to stop or be stopped though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm an Objectivist. Your actions are your responsibility. You can drop the stick and walk away at any time regardless of what Neotarf does, and they can do the same at any time. The problem is that neither of you have.--v/r - TP 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, you are entirely correct, at present I feel the need to defend myself against several accusations being made by Neotarf on an ongoing basis. The Arb case is shut down, I left it alone until Neotarf starting rearranging a completed discussion. I then reverted talk page comment modifications so these issues are separate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Every time I see user A file and ANI report on user B and then not long after user B file a report on user A it is a fair bet that neither are acting like angels. If you two have a beef work it out on your talk pages, if you are forbidding someone to use your talk page then you should avoid this person. I am sure you two can handle this without ANI and if ANI does handle it then it is likely neither of you will come out smelling like roses. Chillum 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

CSU Craiova

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

The page CS Universitatea Craiova (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edit by an user , Cricrucra that is editing this page in the wrong way by adding false data about this football club. The history of this club is just a copy-paste of the history of another football club founded in Craiova, {{FC Universitatea Craiova}}. The CSU club was founded in 2013 by the Craiova City Hall.If you can google the CS U Craiova history you'll find the Universitatea Craiova history which is another club which was excluded by FRF from all competitions. Please ban this user from editing. Thank you.

User:Vranak adding non-free content to his user page

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

This user continues to add File:Private Investigations - Warner.jpg to his user page in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite being told not to do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor about it? — Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This was brought up on the user's talk page. The user's edit summaries to the user page suggest that he is refusing to listen. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Most editors respond pretty well when you talk with them and help them to understand policy, rather than robotically reverting and/or templating them. I recognize that fixing NFCC is a thankless job, but talking to editors in order to get them on board with policy is much more effective long-term than beating them over the head. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question Stefan: why do you even care? What's your angle on this? I'm about ready to tear into your psyche and your petty, slavish motivations, but I'll let you answer this simple question first. Vranak (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content can cause legal issues for Misplaced Pages regardless of where it is used. That's why there are strict criteria for usage. Your usage undoubtedly fails point #9, which states NFC can only be used on content articles. I think Stefan only has Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind, and I'm sure he's not the only user who objects to this non-compliant usage. moluɐɯ 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Can cause legal issues? Has anybody — and I mean an actual rights holders — ever complained about an album cover being used in a userbox before? Let me know if they have. Vranak (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to copyright infringement, preventative is more important than responsive. Please review WP:COPYVIO. moluɐɯ 17:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're living in a climate of fear to say such a thing. I mean, just stop and think about this for a second. Why would anyone, and I mean anyone with the slightest trace of good sense object to their album artwork being featured in a user box? I mean really, why would they have any trouble with that at all? Vranak (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose changes to the policy defined at WP:NFCC you can make proposals on the corresponding talk page, but you can't just defy the policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, but that's irrelevant. If we set a precedent for leeway on copyright violations, they would become rampant. Eventually someone would notice, and perhaps even take legal action. By then, there could be too many violations to deal with. WP:COPYVIO is a policy to be taken seriously. Understand that copyright infringement is illegal under the laws by which WMF and WP are bound. moluɐɯ 17:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Vranak has been doing stuff like this since 2012 (see ) and consistently responds with namecalling and innuendo rather than reasonable discussion. The comment immediately above, coupled with repeated deliberate and unjustifiable violations of copyright/NFCC policy, lay a sound foundation for a block, and Vranak should be warned that another violation will result in one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so obtuse Wolfowitz. Nobody really cares about such minor infringements of copyright, except a handful of hyper-vigilant narcissists bent on applying the rules at any and every opportunity. I know how you guys work. Grow up and find something more productive to do, would you? Vranak (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide what someone else may or may not want or care or notice--that's not how the law works. WMF has made their legal statements and policies, and we have to follow the legal policy even if we disagree with it. You're welcome to find an appropriate place to start a discussion on changing the policy. But in the mean time, you are bound to follow it. DMacks (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP

A user from this address ] is using multiple IP's to push their point of view on the Fighting Fantasy articles, specifically Creature of Havoc. When the reasons why their contribution was removed were presented (]), the user unfortunately resorted to insults (]), (]), and then began widespread reverting (eg. ] and then vandalising pages (]). I advised BOZ - (]) - who was good enough to protect Creature of Havoc and then block the user for 48hrs for persistent edit warring. Perhaps this needs to happen on several key FF articles to prevent this? For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that in general admins are loathe to perform pre-emptive semi protect unless there are signs of chronic edit warring, or at least an impending edit war. I can only suggest that an eye be kept on it and the a request popped into RFPP if something does break out. Admins may differ in their opinion though. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summary from 71.246.152.85

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

See this. I'm really sick of this kind of editing. At least I don't need to hide behind an IP.--Jetstreamer  17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing that here? Satiating the troll's desire for attention, notoriety and controversy? betafive 17:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Betafive has a point. The edit is stale, so there's not much, if anything, to be done to the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard about the civility policy?--Jetstreamer  17:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a stale edit (so the editor does not need to be "stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption"), so other than a possible revdel of the edit summary, what's the emergency that warrants an AN/I report? —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not that stale. We block IPs for 24-48 ours regularly so a 5 hour old very abusive comment does warrant a block. I assume this IP went to bed and is going to do it again in the morning so I have made a preventative block on the IP for 48 hours. I have also deleted the edit summary per WP:RD2.

I don't think ANI is for emergencies only. I also think our editors should be protected when they are abused in an edit dispute, otherwise NPOV is in danger of being replaced by the point of view of only the thickest skinned. It is not unreasonable for someone to come here to ask an admin to look at this sort of thing. It is not as though we have a special place to deal with personal attacks. Chillum 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jetstreamer could have been more clear about what action he wanted. I don't know if he was seeking a block, a revdel or just advice. I did the block and revdel, but I am short on advice until the way Misplaced Pages responds to personal attacks changes. Chillum 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that seriously the sort of shit that merits revdel these days? For fucks sake, it wasn't even a personal attack (unless you think there's something wrong with being gay.) betafive 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Using the pejorative "faggot" to insult another user, directly or indirectly, is homophobic and grossly offensive... moluɐɯ 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think calling one of our editors a fagg does not qualify with WP:RD2s wording: slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value?

Fagg is a slur where I come from, even when spelled wrong. I doubt he meant cigarette. What do you mean these days? You signed up on the 7th. Chillum 17:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: We don't have a Witiquette board any more, true. We do have {{uw-npa}}, though, and we have {{uw-npa4im}}. I guess, philosophically, for one-off issues like that, I'm inclined to ignore the issue and deny them the attention. If they do it repeatedly, that's another matter. It would be nice if there were a queue similar to WP:RFO for revision-deleting edit summaries like these so that they could be quietly dealt with.

@Betafive: That was a pretty clear slur using language related to sexual preference. It's no more acceptable to use that language than parallel language regarding race, gender, or disability. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As a fag myself, I wish people would grow a pair and recognize that words have only as much power as you give them. BTW, this account may only be seven days old, but I've been here much, much longer; long enough to remember when admins had better things to do than feed trolls. betafive 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you choose to show me another edit history of yours then I will take that into account. Otherwise it appears to me that you signed up on the 7th. While there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts you cannot expect to keep your history when using a brand new account. Chillum 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So because I didn't keep track of the various IP addresses I've been assigned over the past ten years, you think it's legit to assume my very first introduction to Misplaced Pages was five days ago? LMFAO, no wonder people are leaving in droves. betafive 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if you have a history, how am I to know if it is one of a blocked editor or an admin of perfect behavior? I can't really assume anything about your past. You leave me with no information except what I can see from the 7th. Chillum 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked me what I mean by "these days," and I explained. Regardless of whether I was blocked or an admin in a previous life, I know what the fuck I'm talking about-- there was a time when admins would have blocked the troll and moved on. It didn't merit a revdel is all I'm saying. betafive 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Also, your excerpt from WP:RD2 is misleading. The full sentence reads: "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." betafive 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling a gay person a fag is suggesting that they should be burned like a bundle of wood. Fag is a synonym for kindling. It is not ordinary incivility. It is grossly offensive. Chillum 18:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a myth, read Faggot (slang)#Etymology. Besides, the troll didn't call him a fag. The troll said he looked like a fag. betafive 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to say you agree he is a troll. We block trolls too. Do you really think that the edit summary contained some sort of encyclopedic value that suggests I should reverse my revdel? Do you think the encyclopedia would be better if I did that? Is that what you want me to do? Chillum 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Of course you should block the prick, but I didn't see anything in that edit summary that merits revdel. Now that this thread has gone on this long, people are going to be wondering what the hell was said to cause all this controversy, so yes, I think you should reverse the revdel. betafive 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree that this is "an ordinary personal attack". The IP made an objective remark on his openness to being gay (which he is if you check his userboxes), and then uses that fact to defame his contributions, even using a pejorative. Homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the edit, it was an attack solely on the editor and solely for the purpose of being offensive. I'm also more inclined to respect the opinion of Chillum, who has been entrusted with this tool, over the editor who believes that we need to "grow a pair". moluɐɯ 18:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"You look like a fag" cannot possibly be defamatory unless you think there's something wrong with being gay. Do you? betafive 18:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"(offensive, vulgar, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) A gay person, particularly a man." When you use the word "faggot", it comes attached with that defamation. It doesn't just mean "homosexual", it means "homosexual (which is bad)". It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what that IP thinks, and he thinks "being a faggot" is bad. Intent is what matters, and that edit summary was intended to defame. moluɐɯ 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual but that word is a homophobic slur in the same way that the n word is a racist slur. It can be insulting and uncivil without being defematory, or implying that there is anything wrong with being gay. Alicb (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment from another fag: I too am a fag and am not offended by that word irl and agree totally with betafive's sentiment that words have only as much power as you give them. Having said that, betafive - you know as well as I do that there is a lot of people who do think that word is a slur and offensive and should not be used to describe someone, regardless of what their sexual orientation is, and as this is a website that encourages civility and good faith editing, it would probably be in everybody's best interest not to use that word like this IP editor did. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's why the IP was appropriately blocked. But revdeling the edit summary? betafive 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would defer to the admins judgment in this particular instance, as you should. I think anyone reading this thread will get a pretty good idea of what the edit summary said. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what Betafive, if an admin, any admin wants to reverse my revdel of this edit summary then I will not object. But I will not be undoing it. I think it unambiguously falls under the criteria for revdel and I don't see what benefit it is to the encyclopedia. Chillum 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Riddle me this: what purpose does the revdel serve? betafive 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, what purpose did the summary serve? moluɐɯ 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You advocate revdeling all useless edit summaries then? betafive 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, but you're just setting up a strawman. An experienced admin found the comment offensive enough to warrant hiding, and, now that it is hidden, a legitimate reason that outweighs the reason for deletion should be made if you want it unhidden. The edit summary's only purpose was to attack a user, can you name an encyclopedic reason to keep it? What benefit does this unsolicited insult serve to the project? moluɐɯ 18:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards