Misplaced Pages

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ( and ) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to keep all about FreeatlastChitchat discussions together. It's ridiculous to have them spread all over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's pretty bleeding ridiculous that you keep gnawing away at this bone. You must realise by now that nothing's going to happen due to the very fact that people are trying to piledrive a conviction. Well, carry on :D _Fortuna 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gnawing on anything. I just noticed that this section was separate from all the others, so I moved it to make it easier to find everything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded and BLP

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wants to include tabloid sources, including The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail on our article on the British National Party, a controversial right-wing political party. As the material concerns living people and these are square in the middle of the definition of "tabloid journalism" I would argue that WP:BLPSOURCES therefore applies here. Would someone else please take a look at the situation then consider reaching out to Snowded and explaining BLP to him? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Some claims from those sources are clearly simple statements of non-contentious fact which is fine - while some show "editorial positions" of the original source or the newspaper printing the claims, which falls outside proper usage.

Where the claims are clearly claims as to motivation etc., they should not be used, but a simple statement that Person A visited country B is not a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220565/BNP-change-whites-membership-rules-fall-foul-discrimination-laws.html is far too editorial in nature to pass muster IMO, while

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hope-not-hate-vote-for-equality-305140 is just a 404 in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334312/Anti-fascist-protestors-arrested-packed-London-buses-following-violent-clashes-BNP-outside-Parliament.html is neither better nor worse than the editorial HuffPo cite for the same claim.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1911033/Top-Euro-Nazi-Zoltan-Fuzessys-hate-site-run-from-terraced-house-in-Gravesend.html is directly violative of WP:BLP for sure, making clear claims of fact based on opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339568/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-visits-Syria-receiving-invite-President-Assad.html is used to make a claim based on its headline and not on what the article actually states in its body ("after being invited to take part in a fact-finding visit to the war-torn country by the regime of President Bashar Assad" is not the same as the claim "BNP leader Nick Griffin visits Syria after receiving invite from President Assad" used in the footnote which is the only apparent reason for using the DM as a cite) and so on.

In short - the problem is that sources are used for both allowable claims of fact, and disallowable statements of opinion not properly attributed as opinion. And, of course, the endemic problem of confusion as to the difference between headlines of articles and the contents of articles. I hope this is clear to all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad John has brought this here although he is misrepresenting the position someone. He deleted a whole load of material some weeks ago on the grounds that BLP policy does not permit the use of tabloid sources. In fact BLP forbids the use of tabloid journalism and per multiple discussions at WP:RS Tabloids are allowed for facts although with caution. No one disputes that broadsheets are better sources. At the time I sought clarification at the BLP notice board here rather than rise to bait of, shall we say, the over enthusiastic templating of my use page with warnings. That discussion also came to the conclusion that tabloids are not the same thing as tabloid journalism. John did not engage in that discussion other that to asset he was right. We've now come back to the issue again. Despite not having taking part in the discussion I raised at BLP he again issued a warning based on is particular interpretation of policy.

Now as far as I am concerned I am not wedded to the material in question and substantially agree with Collect's statement above. The issue here is proper clarification of policy. If WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of any tabloid journal as a source then it should clearly state as such. Tabloid journalism is not confined to the tabloids and neither is everything in a tabloid journal tabloid journalism. Not the Sun, but the Mirror and the Mail do have a reasonable reputation for news reporting. Something that has been established in discussions at WP:RS on several occasions. I posted again to BLP and put a link on RS earlier today to try and get this clarified rather than rushing to ANI but I did think about it.

The other issue which I just want to note is John's behaviour as an admin. If I have raised an issue for clarification on the BLP page and he (i) does not take part and (ii) most editors agree that not everything in a tabloid is tabloid journalism then he should not be slapping warning templates on my page but should be taking part in those discussions. It really isn't too much to ask. ----Snowded 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• If User:Snowded is truly "not wedded to the material in question", and also truly of the belief that the two edits here and here are reasonable ones, then there may be a WP:CIR issue involved. I invite an uninvolved admin to review these edits (which involve restoring information on living people referenced only to the worst of the gutter press) and issue a final warning with a view to blocking if anything like this is repeated in the future. If Snowded's belief is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. is somehow capable of allowing edits like these two (which restore the Sun source which even he accepts is not permitted) then he should not be editing here. --John (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• And, sorry, I meant to note that the content issue is moot now as User:Hillbillyholiday has very commendably re-removed the tabloid material and re-sourced that which can be; I would strongly request that a further restoration of the non-compliant material (or any such material on other articles) should be met with a block. --John (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• • So after the best part of ten years of editing here on a range of articles and raising an issue of policy clarification John's response is to say that I shouldn't be editing here? Further I am to be threatened with a block? Please, isn't there something somewhere about chilling effects? An uninvolved admin reviewing that material is a good idea - but it won't resolve the current conflict between John's assertion that no tabloid material is permitted and agreements at WP:RS which say they can be reliable sources. On that we need a community decision. Oh and the statement about my belief above is plain false the issue is what constitutes poor sourcing and on that WP:RS is at odds with John ----Snowded 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that John subsequently changed "Snowded's belief that" to "If Snowded's belief is that" for which I thank him. Making it a question not a statement is appreciated. The answer is that it is not. I am solely and simply seeking clarification of the conflict between WP:RS and the reading of WP:BLPSOURCES by John (which also conflicts with that by several other editors). The content issue is partly resolved by Hillbillyholiday edits. So if we can resolve the policy issue now it will prevent future conflict ----Snowded 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies for my typo the first time round. This is AN/I where user conduct issues requiring admin intervention are discussed. There is a parallel discussion at WT:BLP where the policy (which seems pretty clear to most people on matters like this one) can continue to be discussed. If you have agreed that you will desist from edit-warring violative and defamatory content into a BLP, then I would not ask for further admin intervention, unless this was to recur in the future. However, User:Zumoarirodoka may need a line in the sand drawn for them as they have restored material which nobody has tried to justify. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, current policy allows the use of Tabloids and most editors involve in the previous discussion agree with that. You really need to stop this aggressive labelling and issuing of threats to experienced editors who are trying to get an apparent conflict resolved. I could equally ask you to stop edit warring to remove material which is sourced per current policy on WP:RS and show some respect for WP:BRD. If you want to move the question to that board I'm fine with it. Maybe this time you will actually take part in the discussion, your behaviour is in question here as well you know. ----Snowded 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John, could you please at least tell me about the material which you believe is innapropriate for me to include on the British National Party article and talk with me either on the talk page or my user page, instead of bringing it up here first and issuing final warnings to me about disruptive editing (which I was definitely not intentionally doing) without any prior discussion whatsoever?

I'm not opposed to legitimate criticism as I am fully aware I am biased against the BNP (as with the majority of editors on that article) and I try to stick to WP:NPOV as much as I can, but please be civil about correcting me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) edited 16:25 UTC

There're two interesting question on behaviour which could be asked here.

1. If an experienced editor has raised a disputed interpretation for clarification at the appropriate policy forum, should an admin issue them with a block threat to support that Admin's position in the said dispute?
2. Should an admin who is aware that there is a dispute about policy, edit war to revert long standing material without first discussing the issue on the talk page of the article concerned?

Just a thought ----Snowded 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zumoarirodoka is continuing to edit war this material in against consensus after a warning. Block, please. --John (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @John: As soon as you mentioned the specifics, I removed the material; I have no objections to removing specific material, but it wasn't explained to me personally which parts were BLP violations. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. It seems there is only one user now who does not "get" this policy. They were honest enough to admit that they restored the Sun source to the BLP to make a . I asked at WT:BLP if there is anyone who thinks the non-compliant tabloid version was better than the version we have now, and this user (alone, obviously) still seems to think that using the Daily Mail to support negative material naming a living person is ok. I predict that if this aspect of user behaviour is not clarified, this user will continue to misunderstand BLP. I would like an uninvolved admin to look carefully at this and advise Snowded of our BLP policy. --John (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You really can't stop can you. WP:RS permits tabloid papers to be used as a reliable source on factual matters. BLP only forbids tabloid journalism. In all the discussions so far everyone has agreed that alternative sources are better if available. So your statement above about my preferring it is plain false. The issue is that you think you can revert perfectly good material just because it is linked to a Tabloid source and when you are challenged you issue block threats on people's talk pages while breaking WP:BRD. Given that you are an admin that is dubious behaviour at best. Try asking for better sourcing or even look for it before blind reverting. You could also discuss issues with other editors and generally assume good faith. The minute we first encountered each other on this I raised the matter for clarification on the BLP notice board which is what a responsible editor should do. In that discussion everyone (including me) said that other sources were preferable but that Tabloids could be used for factual matters. Your contribution to that debate was to tell everyone else they were wrong and you were right. I've opened it again with a the policy statement below given you didn't want it discussed here. Taking part in that discussion as a equal participant would be a better approach than demands here ----Snowded 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy question

To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?

• Some use: Reporting of statements and other factual matters should be allowed but no commentary, ideally alternative sources should be provided ----Snowded 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for this discussion, as stated above. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • OK I have shifted it intact to the BLP page. I trust you will contribute ----Snowded 16:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Its just about npov - User:Snowded hates the bnp and wants them and griffin portrayed as negatively as he can and he will use any rubbish opinionated link he can find to support that portrayal and will ignore all policies including wp:blp to achieve that end, simple really. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And absolutely correctly, I suppose. _Fortuna 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Misplaced Pages articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Misplaced Pages works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (barbarians) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate, imprecise, confusing, and thus unscientific terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrianism (held by some as monotheistic and thus included among the “religions of the book”); including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism; including or not Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth, and one will never know which set of religions is meant by such terms, although one will always know that whoever is referred by such terms is or was supposed to be exterminated anyway. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to which culture victim of Christian or Islamic physical and cultural genocide the reference is made, whether to those of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the Native Americans, of the Yazidis, of the Greeks, of the Romans, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia trivialized and demonized by Christian propaganda as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing, dehumanizing, blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, and humanize such a wealth of religious traditions, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Misplaced Pages. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One extra remark: while the words “pagan” an “paganism” are seldom or never used in relation to ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Sumerians, of the Egyptians, of the Akkadians, of the Harappans, of the Hittites, and so forth, which were not subjected to the episodes of physical and cultural genocide called “Christianization”, these very same terms are systematically used to describe those other polytheistic religions which were subjected to such genocides, such as those of the Celts, Slavs, Norse, Saxons, Prussians, Balts, Native Americans, and so forth. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the terms “pagan” and “paganism” were created and have served strictly as a war propaganda jargon in support of physical and cultural genocide, not unlike “idolater”, “infidel”, “devil worshipper”, “heathen”, “satanist”, “apostate” etc., variously used by Abrahamic religionists from biblical times (whatever is the fact behind biblical mythology) to the Islamic State in our days. In other words, there are arguably more similarities than differences between the Islamic State terrorist razing Palmyra or decapitating a Yazidi “idolater”, and the Christian-biased Misplaced Pages editor trying to raze even the scientific names for non-Abrahamic religions exterminated by Christianity or trying to decapitate a co-editor just because they have objected to the obsessive, indiscriminate use of such Christian-terrorist jargons as “pagan” and “paganism”. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Misplaced Pages page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Misplaced Pages linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Misplaced Pages is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Misplaced Pages with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, since Jewish tribes are not necessarily implied in my edit, and given the word's many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

When it comes to ignorance of the meaning of words, consulting dictionaries, or just reading in general, makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search for the word “derogatory.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

https://simple.wiktionary.org/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Misplaced Pages editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

Just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some quotations from the above links:

“Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Paganism has also been understood by some to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally seen as insulting by adherents of those religions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism#Perception

“Pagan, adjective”

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.”

“Pagan, noun

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.”

https://simple.wiktionary.org/pagan

“Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

“'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one.” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

“...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It ] merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

You might want to elaborate a bit more in depth on your thoughts, and explain exactly why you say that the derogatoriness of a term is irrelevant within a discussion centered on... the derogatoriness of the same term!

Or maybe you want to say that the derogatoriness of the term “pagan” is irrelevant in the context of an article describing the extermination of a people and its religion just because they were, eh... “pagan”, is it?

It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning,

For about two millenia, and always with the same derogatory meaning and purpose, as extensively shown elsewhere in this discussion, to wit, as the foremost war-propaganda enemy-bashing hate-jargon supporting the physical and cultural genocide globally perpetrated against countless non-Christian peoples, called “Christianization”, akin to the 1400 years old parallel physical and cultural genocide waged against non-Muslim peoples known as “Islamization”, both parts and continuation of a wider and older relentless war against humanity, civilization, and religious freedom, known as “Abrahamization”, which started when Hebrews invented the so-called “first Noahide commandment”, which commands and wants binding on all of humanity, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike, full surrender and submission to the Hebrew tribal “god”, the cruel, murderous, genocidal, envious, narcissistic, exclusivistic, monomaniac, mythical creature of a sick imagination, known as “Yahveh”, as represented, of course, by “his” “chosen people”, the Hebrew, thus elevated by their own mythology to the supreme rank among nations, with a little help from their Christian and Muslim ideological subjects.

and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant.

Of course. They will understand exactly what is meant, to wit, “someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen”, a “devil worshipper”, an “idolater”, “someone worth being burned at the stake”, “someone from a worthless culture worth being destroyed and denied”, and so forth.

Jsp722 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here; all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect. You also need to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries and personal attack edit summaries. That said, in the instances I looked at and the instances mentioned above, the replacement of the word pagan with the more accurate specific, neutral, and correct terms has been an improvement. "Pagan" is not, and should never be used as, an antithesis of "Christian" or other 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-millennium religions, monotheistic religions, or Abrahamic religions. Where specificity is available and verifiable, specificity should be used. Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me

I often peruse the reference desk to get some advice on how to perform organic chemistry reactions in the lab. They aren't homework questions, particularly as I have a bachelors' in biochemistry and I am pursuing these reactions on an amateur basis. User:Medeis puzzlingly keeps accusing me of using the reference desk to answer "homework questions" and "professional advice". As far as I know, the restriction on professional advice is for legal advice, medical advice, financial investing advice, the kind of advice you would actually hire a professional consultant for, rather than restrictions on advanced organic chemistry because the questions are advanced or practical in scope. He has made these accusations against me on this basis several times, making personal attacks, and the latest action involves removing a legitimate question outright. Medeis sent me a "final warning" a few days ago on my talk page, threatening to get me "indefinitely blocked" as a sockpuppet, or saying he would report me to ANI. I thought I would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also until two minutes ago, until I further glanced up on the talk pages, I actually had no idea that User:Medeis has been topic-banned from the Reference Desk before. Could I ask for some advice or intervention on the matter, seeing as it is not his first time harassing other users on the Reference Desk? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Medeis in many area and some of their accusations seem IMO careless at times. E.g. the homework questions accusation already seemed bizzare as it never seemed like Yanping Nora Soong (YNS) was asking questions relating what would be considered "homework".

However it has became increasingly clear that YNS is asking questions relating to potentially dangerous chemistry work they apparently plan to try at home, in an effort to produce drugs for self medication. See in particular Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 January 4#Ground glass joints with 2.5 bar pressure relief valve?. While I have some sympathies for the situation YNS finds themselves in, I'm fairly sure from the comments I've seen that I'm not the only one incredibly uncomfortable with this line of question. I'm not sure if Medeis's unilateral deletion was the best move (particularly since for a variety of reasons, Medeis's deletions tend to cause controversy) but in this particular instance it's difficult to fault it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the sock issue, while it appears to be true Yanping Nora Soong has used other accounts in the past, AFAIK these account were basically in good standing perhaps with some people suggesting they were asking a little too many questions and a few other issues which seem irrelevant to the current situation. While there may be some similarites of current with previous behaviour, considering the length of time and the fact there was never AFAIK any formal warning or restriction, I do not believe there is a credible case for sockpuppetry (i.e. misuse of multiple account such as avoiding scrunity). Particularly since it should be fairly obvious why YNS may not want to link their current account with previous accounts from what they've disclosed on their user page. If Medeis still feels there is an issue, they should approach arbcom about this to avoid WP:OUTING and other concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a grave issue. YNS shouldn't be doing what she's trying to do. It could have really devastating consequences. Although, Medeis has violated his sanction (and also given a bad rationale), I think the real issue at hand is that YNS is attempting to prepare unknown medications for herself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been psychiatrically hospitalized over thirty times, I actually have been through over twenty to thirty different medications in the last four years (I've lost count), I've even had electroconvulsive therapy (which they won't give me anymore since my diagnosis was formally changed from MDD / bipolar spectrum disorder to complex PTSD and dissociative disorder NOS). I have attempted suicide several times in severely dissociated or dysphoric states (not a threat by any means, just saying how severe my disorder is). Bear in mind, there are currently no approved medications for the treatment of PTSD. Experimental treatments are risky, but untreated chronic suicidality and dissociation are even more so. Plus, targeting NMDA receptors and sigma receptors are really promising lines of treatment.

I am also not doing anything illegal (self-medication is a human right) and I'm actually only asking for organic chemistry advice, not medical advice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AFAIK Medeis is under no active sanction relating to the RD or removals. (I think none point blank.) The topic ban mentioned above happened 2 years ago but was quickly vacated as lacking consensus (i.e. it's considered to have never happened). Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked up some threads in ANI and it seems there's lots featuring him. I did find the thread containing the community sanction but not the one which overturned that outcome. I simply took YNS' word for it (I still don't know). Now, Medeis might not have a bad conduct but he certainly is a problem user. I'd like to see links to his hounding and personal attacks (if any) before I comment further (not that my comments matter). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a different named user asked the same question just a few days ago, and it was discussed ad nauseam at the ref desk talk page. In short, the ban was lifted 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Self-medication is not a human right, but it's just assumed to be one (just like self-euthanizing is not one but often supposed to be). Now, I'm no chemistry guy but as far as Wnt said on the Reference Desk, do not try it at home, you don't know what products your reaction might yield, hell, you could find the next big drug but there's no surety. Just saying, the consequences are too great. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not currently have any rule or guideline prohibiting the asking of "dangerous" questions. As always, the correct response upon observing a question which one would be uncomfortable answering is to ignore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how much social responsibility one feels. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, you should know better. Where commas should be placed and eliminating blank lines that improve readability are important issues, because the almighty Manual of Style says they are, but being responsible for assisting another editor in potentially hurting themselves or producing their own drugs to self-medicate, that's not our problem, for, it turns out, every person is an island. BMK (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen Medeis allege "homework" a few times lately in situations where I think it plainly was not. Now the Reference Desk may have a policy about homework questions, but it's important that we not let the policy be gamed in such a way that, if a person wanted to, he or she could levy a false "homework" accusation against any question and then expect the merits of the question to be debated as if it it were an issue. While I am definitely not fond of chemistry under pressure, I must emphasize the importance of keeping an open door for people to ask such questions. If we happen to talk someone out of trying something risky, this is a very good thing; it is a special case though of the general rule that if we can share useful information, we make people more informed and more informed people will do better, safer chemistry. Though I should note that Soong is actually a much better chemist than I am, which is why the suggestion of using improper vessels under pressure seemed so out of place! (It's a pity our Document Object Model doesn't allow better possibilities for citizen-scientists to embed real-time lab notebooks and coordinate their research through Misplaced Pages... but I digress)

Anyway, the ANI take-home here should be (a) the question isn't up for debate, (b) Medeis should knock off with the bogus homework allegations - whether you call them assuming bad faith, personal attack or whatever, they're not relevant or productive. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist but I've worked in an art foundry for over twenty years where we do all types of pressure casting and molding and I can't express to YNS enough how devastating the catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel can be. People don't realize how powerful even 10psi can be depending on the failure let alone truly high pressure systems. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Failures that would be fatal if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With chemical reactions you can have the production of gases spiral out of control incredibly quickly with no chance to intercede. Then you're talking the potential for glass shrapnel and the chemicals spraying everywhere. Capeo (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the intention. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was good advice. I guess I didn't think of 1.4 atm (gauge pressure; 2.4 atm absolute) as potentially being catastrophic. After all, 1.4 atm * 100 mL = 14 joules. The K.E. of a typical bullet is >500J (in hunting, ~>2500 J -- seeing from Muzzle energy#Legal_requirements_on_muzzle_energy), but an airsoft gun produces an output more on the order of 7.5J, and no one thinks of those things as lethal. My other consideration is that a a litre of water freezing into ice exerts wayyy more pressure on a tight container -- but I guess it doesn't do that explosively. But, after the heads-up, I ordered a specially-designed pressure vessel rated at 10 atm (tested at 15 atm) instead. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, 1.4 atm = 1.4 * 101325 Pa = 141855 kg m-1 s-2. Multiply by 100 cm3 = 1E-4 m3 = 14 joules... that seems to check out. Also, on looking it up just now I should admit that I had a misconception in my mind -- it might actually be possible to use X-rays to find slivers of glass in someone's eye and avoid prospecting for it with forceps, though borosilicate is more difficult than soda lime glass. Even so, I'm not enthusiastic about exploding glassware, even before we get into the toxicity/flammability of whatever is in it. And buying a stronger container just seems like doubling down on the risk to me. You weren't very clear on whether you had any sort of fume hood or blast shield set up at all, which was one of the reasons for concern. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to refrain from answering at this point at length. But I asked YNS whether her questions were homework questions for the simple reason that I did such syntheses in Organic Chem Lab to get my bachelor's degree; i.e., as homework. If it wasn't homework, it was a request for professional advice, both of which the Ref Desk disallows.

Based on YNS's talk page and contribution history, I think it is clear this user has a very long history soapboxing and of resorting to ANI, rather than editting mainspace. Her recent attacks on User:Snow Rise as a patriarchical cisnormative heterosexist (I paraphrase) started by a third person show a focus on using WP as a homepage and forum, rather than an encyclopedia. Likewise there's the request for speculation about how to get executed for a capital crime where no capital punishment exists, which degenerated into a discussion of assisted suicide show a wide divergence from the project's goals.

As a queer myself I can see the temptation to "speak out", but WP is defined as WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think YNS has ever once asked for a reference at the ref desk. The sole problem I see on my account is that I did not notify YNS yesterday when I reverted her latest WP:NOTHOWTO question. But she has never engaged with me, except to revert a warning of mine on her talkpage to follow the guidelines with a revert and the edit summary "LOLZ".

I have nothing against this user, have not pursued her across mainspace, and suggest this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really attacky about deeming someone a member of the patriarchy; most cis males who aren't feminists are by default, members of the patriarchy**, and I wasn't trying to make an attack. I was simply pointing out to him that, "your viewpoint is convenient for you to have, but not convenient for people who belong to more disadvantaged groups". Anyway, the whole issue sprung up up around what it meant for a doctor to make an "error" while sexing a baby, and it turned out we misinterpreted each other to begin with, and I don't think the discussion is antithetical to the project or to the reference desk when it makes evaluate more clearly what sex and gender mean. I wasn't even trying to have a debate, I was simply responding to what seemed like an unintentional microaggression. As Wnt put it succinctly : I've noticed most methods of classifying people that seem convenient to me eventually seem annoying to someone being classified.

**from the lead from our article on patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property..."

Also what's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about seeking the death penalty when you've been imprisoned for life? It wasn't a request for legal advice -- I've never been in prison and do not think I ever might be, certainly not for life (tho if I were black I could not say this with as much certainty), it was more of a burning curiosity especially as I kind of saw it as a deep injustice to be imprisoned for life but not to be allowed the option to die. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By Misplaced Pages's standard, yes, "deeming someone" in that matter is indeed a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

YNS, Please simply read the Ref Desk guildelines at the top of the RD pages, as well as Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer:

Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

And abide by them without interposing yourself in discussions where people innocently use terms such as "transgender" by attempting to shame them. I am certainly on no vendetta against you, and did not file an ANI, or a complaint at the talk page. You may find that engaging with people who've been openly queer since the early 80's, or simply other editors who don't start from the same premises as you, to be informative. And I do still maintain you should only ask for references, and not how-to questions, on how to synthesize bioactive substances. You are looking at matters that require hoods, vents, wash-stations, and so forth by law. We're simply not qualified, and I can quote plenty of other editors who've told you the same thing, if you insist. Please ping me here for further attention if needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOTHOWTO would also be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: It looks like there you started discussing the "cishet patriarchy" impersonally, but got drawn into what seemed like more direct argument. I don't want to confuse personal political opinion with personal attack. Nonetheless, be very careful about the "deeming people", i.e. making or appearing to make ad hominem statements or assumptions about other users. I know there's a rigged game here, that often people use policy as a way to attack people personally and then if they gripe back they get slammed; so don't let yourself become a victim of it. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO AFAIK applies to article space. It doesn't apply to the Reference Desk. I'm also not asking for professional advice -- if I had more chemist friends I spoke to on a regular basis, I'd be asking them in a non-professional capacity. I don't think you also know the difference between "transgender" (a term I identify with) and transgendered (a misuse at best, a slur at worst). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I may, under the circumstances. I just want to point out YNS that they really have no idea whether I am male or female or indeed whether I am cis, and they very well might never know, since one of the most compelling facets of Misplaced Pages is that participation is not predicated on who you are, but what you bring to the table as a contributor. I've always found that aspect of Misplaced Pages to be virtually unique in my personal experiences. However, I will state unequivocally that I am a feminist and consider it a defining feature of my life and general morale outlook. And I very much take offense to YNS's unfounded and repetitive accusations and presumptions about myself (and Graeme), which, at this point, I very much consider to have passed into the territory of WP:personal attacks, made as a part of a massive WP:SOAPBOX effort to divert discussions into territories they wish to zealously engage on. In an effort to create one or more foil for their stances, they have made numerous assumptions about the character and beliefs of others (myself primarily) which are not in evidence anywhere in the discussion and from which they will not be dissuaded in asserting. I like to think I have skin about as thick as any editor, but I admit, my patience begins to wear thin for being essentially called a bigot on no more basis than that it provides a convenient rhetorical argument for the insinuating party. I urge anyone who has questions about how tortured their logic is in reaching these conclusions to read the thread in question. Snow 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perspective or background of the contributor does matter somewhat (in certain cases), see Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias.

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia? I'm a photographer to begin with, so I find this sentiment puzzling. I actually didn't wish to soapbox at all. Graeme simply mentioned a hypothetical situation of a doctor "being incorrect" in the matter of sexing a baby, and this whole notion of "correctness" with regards to assessing a baby's sex (or correcting their sex) is actually a cause of a lot of suffering. This is not just personal opinion -- actually there are entire communities of individuals whose quality of life has been diminished because of the whole notion of whether a baby's sex is correct/incorrect.

I didn't call anyone a bigot, I am unaware of when unfeminist became a slur. If for you, "transgender'ed is not a slur, then neither is "unfeminist". Honestly -- I'm not trying to be a smartass -- but the whole idea of "sex is biological but gender is constructed," though historically important, has become frequently challenged. In fact, these challenges are well-sourced. See Sex and gender distinction#Criticism of the "sex_difference" vs. "gender difference" distinction. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for the sake of the flying spaghetti monster, I have never said that the word "transgender" was a slur. I am transgender.

You've misread WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS (or not read it at all): it doesn't give you free license to speculate about another user's identity, motives, or beliefs. It concerns only our content and how we apply the sources to determine the shape that content will take. It does not concern our contributors at all, except insofar as it informs how they should approach article content. I'll leave it to others to read that thread and come to their own conclusions about what you were implying about my beliefs and the leaps in logic you made to do so. As far as I am concerned, painting me as an "unsympathetic cisnormative oppressor" and the various other terms you've used, ad nauseum, are quite inflammatory, especially in light of my repeated efforts to get you to stop speculating about what manner of person I am, off-wiki. You've stopped now and that's good enough for me to assume it is a turning point in your involvement there (for which I am grateful) but you do need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies on arguing the point, not the user, if you want to get on civilly here. Snow 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how this discussion actually influenced article content, as opposed to a Reference Desk answer, and secondly, I apologize if you actually aren't cis. However, it seemed reasonable to assume a cisgender background based on rather absolutist** arguments you were making (**I don't think it's out of line to call this so?) -- that there are only two human sexes, and that all humans can be categorized or assigned membership to only one of them. Most trans or nonbinary people who have faced oppression from cisnormativity in society wouldn't make an argument like that. Also, it was not apparent to me that cisnormativity has ever adversely affected you. I was not making a bad faith accusation, or trying to impugn or insult you in any way. The majority of the people I interact with in everyday life, outside my closest friends, hold cisnormative beliefs. Cisnormativity is something I deal with on a daily basis. The same applies to white privilege: most white people in Western countries (or even East Asia) enjoy white privilege whether they realize it or not, unless they have faced societal oppression for not being white enough. I myself, enjoy certain kinds of privilege due to my education and upbringing, that many other people do not. It's not a personal attack to say that someone has cis privilege, it's just an attempt to get a person to try to re-examine the points of view held by those who don't have similar privileges. I don't think it is in violation of policy to note that an absolutist position on sex membership (or categorization) is very convenient to cis people, but not to others.

That aside, I apologize for not introducing references earlier. I was not as rigorous in my answer seeing as our answers weren't a discussion of article content. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether I (or any editor) is cis or trans (or Caucasian or Asian or Catholic or Muslim, or a member of another broad category of person). Nor is any editor obliged to confirm, deny, or in any way clarify their relationship to one of those categories in order to provide a factual, source, or content opinion on the topic. Our personal relation to demographics do not matter in this place--or at least, aren't meant to, if we don't bring them into the mix ourselves. Further, you don't get to yourself say "I am X, therefor, my opinion is more valid for X, and I am going to act as Arbiter and Gatekeeper of X". Those kinds of arguments from authority just won't fly here. Actually, quite the opposite is true on this project: it can be considered very problematic for an editor (especially a new contributor) to work in areas where they have strong emotional or ideological attachments for which they feel inclined to advocate, as this can be a significant bar to exercising WP:Neutral point of view, one of the pillar concepts of activity here. In any event, you definetly are not allowed to say "I think you're probably Y, therefore I can reach the following conclusions on what you think of X." You might very well get that impression about another contributor from time to time (we all do). But keep it to yourself and don't let it influence how you interact with others or how your arguments are presented.

So, using the discussion in question as an example, it's perfectly acceptable to mention theories or data or cisnormative privilege (and especially useful if you provide sources to support these concepts), but if someone has a different take on those concepts, don't accuse them of having blinders on because of factors that you can't know about and which aren't meant to be part of the discourse here in any event. And although you aren't forbidden from bringing your own background into discussion, it's probably best to avoid that too: in discussions on article content, your perspective won't matter much if you don't have WP:reliable sources to back up and WP:verify your position, and your arguments will carry more weight if you seem to be making them on their merits as a dispassionate observer. And indeed these principles of good argumentation and neutral stance generally apply to the ref desks as well, though the nuances are a little different. Approaching these topics from a stance of indifference is not always easy or consistent with how we intuitively treat the underlying issues when they arise in other areas of our life, I know, but it has advantages when we are working on an encyclopedia. Snow 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia?

• (1) You focus on one small aspect of what I said, ignoring the larger point: your edits have, by and large, not been focused on improving the encyclopedia.
• (2) It depends on the content of the photographs, and their appropriateness for use on en.Wiki (since you actively reject uploading them to Commons, which they're more likely to be used by other language WPs and be seen and used by non-Wikimedians).
• (3) In your case, 3 self-portraits and 14 other photos do not constitute such an improvement to the encyclopedia as to invalidate my point.

BMK (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually have been constructing references to upload to chemistry articles on article space, I just haven't actually written them to articlespace yet -- User:Yanping_Nora_Soong/literature. Also, I'll just say right here -- of course I want to improve the encyclopedia, but the Ref Desk space is very different from the rest of the Misplaced Pages space. Do you wish that I stop contributing because less than half of my edits are to article space? Self-portraits aside, quantity and quality of photographs are different metrics -- actually that should apply to edit counts as well.

I would also like to point out that I haven't been blocked half a dozen times for edit-warring. Are you sure you actually want to improve the encylopedia, BMK? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Yanping Nora Soong, I am absolutely certain that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and for not other reason. I'll also note that, in what appears to be the type of action which others have described above, you turned my attempt to advise you about how to avoid what would seem to be an inevitable sanction in your future into an attack on me. I would suggest that such behavior is not productive, and you should consider that not everything which is addressed to you is a provocation which requires responding in that manner. Clearly, I can talk to you, but there's no way I can make you listen, so good luck to you. BMK (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would encourage you to edit some chemistry articles too. I enjoy answering the chemistry questions by supplying references, but really you are not going to get serious professional chemistry advice on the reference desk! Also I am not upset about your interpretation of the genealogical record sex error. We just have to WP:assume good faith all around. There is no need to complain here about the issues raised above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There is a very big problem with your complaint about Soong's edit counts. Soong has a high edit count at Misplaced Pages:Reference desks because she had several very technical questions to ask, and encountered substantial naysaying and requests for further information from several people including myself. For months, several people at the Refdesk (you can see them there on the talk page now) have been saying that people who seriously ask questions should consider registering accounts to avoid the anti-vandal semi-protection applied to many of the desks for much of the time. Now you come along and say that if an editor's edit counts are invested in Refdesk questions, they're not serving any purpose and there's something wrong with them. We can't have it both ways. My opinion is that asking and answering questions on the Refdesk is a useful encyclopedia building activity, which sometimes suggests direct improvements to articles and in any case is building up a database of raw Q-and-A material that we could use to develop better resources either here or at Wikiversity. I bet those gadgets they advertise on TV that answer questions use our material as part of their database also. In any case, whether or not you think the Refdesk is worthwhile activity, that issue should not be debated just for her alone simply because someone decided to call her question a homework question. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is an accurate evaluation of the situation at all. If YNS asks a certain kind of question at the Ref Desk, and gets the kind of response that indicates that it's not an appropriate question for that venue, and then asks another of the same type of questions, the problem does not lie in the fact that YNS got the same kind of response, the problem lies in the fact that YNS did not take on board that questions of that type are not appropriate. Repeating one's actions and expecting a different kind of result is not a reasonable behavior pattern. BMK (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: When YNS talked about trying to do something under pressure and we said it didn't sound like a good idea, that was not inappropriate. That was the Refdesk doing what it was supposed to do, namely, giving people a chance to share information. (more or less -- to the degree that it was just personal opinions/advice with too few sources, we did let him down, but we're not the ones you're blaming) A question does not become "not appropriate" just because someone thinks something is a bad idea; they were within policy and remain so. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A question to RefDesk is "not appropriate" when it does not lie within the rules quoted above by Medeis. As far as I can tell, all of YNS's questions (or at least the majority of them) have been inappropriate for that reason. Further, your apologia for YNS fails to take into account that the editor has been, essentially, a non-contributor to articles, but a serial questioner at RefDesk, which is an ancilliary aspect of Misplaced Pages - it could be closed down tomorrow (not a bad idea) and the encyclopedia, which is our primary project, would not be affected at all. I reiterate, YNS is best advised to stop acting as if every comment directed her way is a criticism, stop responding to comments with personalized attacks, stop filing essentially frivolous ANI complaints, stop using Ref Desk in ways it is not intended to be used, and to start making contributions to the encyclopedia her primary activity here. Any other course of sction is almost certain to end up in a sanction. You are not helping this editor by abetting their behavior. BMK (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your dislike for the Refdesk is not a widely shared sentiment and is not policy. My point is that we are encouraging new users to ask questions at the Refdesk, we are encouraging them to register accounts to do so, and thus logically we should not be going around and condemning them for doing what we encouraged them to do. Anyone in the world has been welcome to ask questions they think are interesting and non-trivial to answer under an IP address, and that behavior does not suddenly become wrong because they registered an account. Her ANI complaint was frivolous only in the sense that most of the interaction here is frivolous - unlike the Refdesk, the encyclopedia could do as well without this forum for non-encyclopedic content - it tied into previous discussions of problem behavior by Medeis; I think that if we end up deciding to tell him, as was proposed below, to stop playing policeman, that would be as reasonable an outcome as any. And if a sanction could be reasonable, asking for it is not frivolous. I have indeed criticized her responses a few times, and my purpose is not to defend her right or wrong; in any case, had I been asked, I certainly would never have advised her to venture into this snake pit. However, as my primary interest regarding the Refdesk is in seeing that people are free to consult it without that being treated like it's some kind of offense, I have been a bit careless of your potentially hostile reaction toward her. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't much like the blanket and poorly-nuanced dispersion which BMK made with regard to the RefDesks, but I think I can understand their concern in this instance. As a long-time contributor to the desks, who has often found it to be one of the more rewarding areas of the project to contribute in and who regards it as (in principle) very useful to the project as a whole, I still have deep misgivings about the liberties certain users take in that space--and this includes a number of those who ask questions and (more concerning) three or four who answer questions. There is far, far, far too much discussion that is unreferenced, including a great deal of wild speculation that cannot be referenced or includes winding digressions into original research. The rules concerning banned topic matters are also inconsistently applied, despite consensus on the Ref Desk talk page and broader Misplaced Pages/WMF principles telling us that they need to be strictly applied. And please, you can dispense with your response that we do not have community guidelines banning/discouraging offering advice in these areas; I know from TP discussions that we do not have the same view of the wording and weight of those principles, and I think it suffices for our purposes here to say we are not on the same page.

In any event, with regard to the rampant speculation in particular, I've been saying for years that if we do not crack down on this kind of behaviour (which flies in the face of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies which the desks are not explictly exempted from), then the larger community will probably do it for us sooner or later. But I admit, in the last year, I've begun to feel like leading the charge to restrict unsourcceable speculation, fishing expeditions and other activities that attempt to make a part of the encyclopedia's process into an almost completely open forum. Which it is not meant to be. It's a reference desk, not a mid-90's online bulletin board for anyone to share any kind of information they choose, regardless of whether it improves the encyclopedia or conforms to broader community rules. Mind you, I'd much rather we started to give temporary topic bans to the worst offenders than that we lay down blanket restrictions on the desks--given that most of our contributors violate the principles of sourcing only intermittently and know where the line between sourceable commentary and wild speculation. But if the choice is between A) laying down some new rules that may complicate our process and B) allowing a general downslide of the desks into subreddit clones because of the activity of a few editors who number less than half a dozen but write literally thousands upon thousands of speculative, unsourced, and frankly often misleading answers to questions, every year--or worse, hijack threads to open discussion into unrelated matters they want to talk about--....well, I know which side I will come down on, alas.

Anyway, putting the issues of the value of the desks and broad violations of their principles aside, BMK is unambigously correct about YNS showing every sign of being WP:NOTHERE. So far. YNS has a long way to go to understanding this project and in internalizing its values. If they stay, I feel this will probably not be the last time the community discusses their behaviour, given their propensity towards a certain kind of paranoia and seeing enemies in people who simply question their approach, activities, and perspectives here, even though they (YNS) are barely familiar with our policies. But, other editors have come here with similar motivations, issues, and difficulties in understanding our process and have eventually become full converts. And all BMK seems to be saying (to my interpretation) is that YNS will be best-served by all of us not treating them with kid gloves and making it clear what is expected of them if they wish to continue to participate here. That's my reading of BMK's comments anyway. Snow 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, you've got it right. BMK (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There's only one person I know for sure is on your list of the 3-4 posters, due to a certain unfortunate tendency to shoot from the holster. I honestly don't know, for example, whether I'm on it, or any other editor who tries to look into a question without fully settling it. I don't know which discussions you think go too far off track and which don't, or why it is wrong to "hijack" a discussion by looking into a related issue when you could just post a new header with the issue if it seemed more appropriate (or anyone could move it there). But your take-home message seems to be the same as BMK's: it has been a mistake for me to tell people like Soong to register an account to ask a Refdesk question. As IP's, they can ask questions on the Refdesk Talk Page or such other page as may eventually be designated in some back corner of Misplaced Pages, and (provided they're not from Australia, in which case they'll probably be blocked as a troll) they can get answers without being dragged through the mud as "NOTHERE" for taking advantage of what we say we offer. True, they can't get pingbacks, but I suppose it's a small price to pay. In Soong's case, it looks like she registered an account to answer a question. Then she decided to upload some photos she had accumulated, and immediately started getting speedy-deletion notices because she'd already had them on the web; from there she must have followed some information about 3RR to end up in an ANI debate, and posting here is definitely a turn for the worse that increases anyone's "NOTHERE" count. Unfortunately, one thing the instructions don't warn new users about is that ANI is not actually useful for anything good, and that raising an issue about someone (as she did with BMK last October over some woman killed on Putin's birthday) creates a long-term adversary in every future proceeding. Well, anyway, you can count it as a step forward that I'll try to remember not to encourage IP's to register to ask Refdesk questions in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: On the contrary, I never have a problem with encouraging anyone to register. It makes for easier continuity of discussion and increases the likelihood of recruiting someone to work on the project longterm (2015 was the first year in several where our recruitment trends moved upwards, and I'd like to see that continue). I'm not sure if that's what BMK is saying either. I haven't seen him suggest as much anywhere above, but I may have missed it. Anyway, where I definitely do agree with him is that, having registered, YNS still needs to familiarize themselves with our community standards if they wish to be involved here. Misplaced Pages may have been founded on the principle of (and should remain) "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but competency is required. The fact of the matter is, there has evolved a little bit of a discontinuity there as our processes for establishing and maintaining the quality of our content have become ever more complicated and nuanced. I imagine it's even more difficult for someone who comes to the project via the refdesks, where principles like WP:V, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOR are flouted regularly with (frankly reckless) abandon. A contributor who first comes to the project through article space probably sees a much better example of how facts and sourcing are meant to be handled here, and how to keep one's personal impressions separate from the subject at hand (which is the root issue that YNS is struggling with in each of the threads that have been raised here). So where I especially agree with BMK is that no one is doing YNS (or any new editor) a favour by not being blunt about what constitutes good editorial procedure here.

As to the other matter, yes, we all know who "the one" is, unfortunately. But until such time as we have the collective will to address these issues, I see no point in singling anyone out by name. But something definitely needs to be done to remind everyone in that space that it is a reference desk. A forum for providing references, plain and simple--not an open forum for unsourced speculation, soapboxing personal views, advocating a stance, or trying to prove that one is the most knowledgeable person in the world by answering every single last question with whatever they can cobble/synth together from their superficial understanding of the topic and their best intuitions/inductive assumptions about what the answer to the question might be. Reddit awaits for those who wish to pursue these topics in an open fashion in a large, vibrant community with many people (capable experts among them) who want to discuss these things at length and are willing to tolerate some speculation and spit-balling to get there. That's not what we are WP:HERE for, however. RD threads need to be at least potentially valuable to the project. Which means the information in them needs to be sourced. At this point, I think its clear (and more's the pity), that there's always going to be that one guy (and I don't mean our current one guy--there's always going to be one, I fear) who just cannot walk that line without firm rules keeping him/her in check. I think it's time we establish a firm, non-flexible language at the top of the RefDesk that points out that WP:V applies there (same as any other area on the project) and that all information/assertions provided need to be thoroughly sourced (and without WP:SYNTH), at least if there is any reasonable chance they will be challenged. If you think a given claim is so manifestly obvious it doesn't require it, fine. But if you go out on that limb and someone challenges you for the source and you can't provide it, you strike your statement and sit back and be quiet. At this point, I fear that's the only way the space can be brought under control and made to conform with the original intention for which it was established and which reference desks actually serve. Snow 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is important, but I think usually people are pretty good about it. Showing up to a Refdesk thread without a source, or at least a wikilink or three, is like coming to a party without a cake or a bottle of booze. It should be a matter of social embarrassment, but we don't need the law on them; when people get hungry they'll figure it out. In any case, I don't think that Soong, asking questions, had these obligations; the questions are generally sincere and interesting, which is all I would expect of them. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about executions and suicide referred to by Medeis is here .

Firstly while there was some limited request for speculation in that question but most of it could be answered with refs without speculation. (Some speculation may have been necessary by the OP from these refs, but that is fairly common since a lot of the time there isn't a ref which answers such a specific question. For that reason there may also be some speculation based on refs by respondents.)

The claim it "degenerated" is missing the point, suicide was a part of the question from the beginning and the YNS later specifically asked "Are there routes for a life-sentenced convict to seek official routes to death that wouldn't be classified as a traditional execution". So the possibility of assisted suicide for life-sentence convicts was explicitly related to what the OP was asking about, despite what Medeis or others in the discussion suggested.

Note that the discussion was about avenues under law, it did not venture in to methods or anything of that sort. While some may be uncomfortable with the topic of assisted suicide and I agree we have to be very careful how we handle such questions (in particular why the OP is asking), there's no reason why "what circumstances is assisted suicide a legal avenue" should be disallowed but "what circumstances is the death penalty a legal avenue" is allowed.

The question of when something is crossing in to the territory of legal advice is a tricky one, but IMO that discussion didn't do. Questions about the law can and are asked and answered on the RD. And frankly if you take it to an extreme, I think many would agree it's silly to say we can't discuss with references whether someone who doesn't belong to the Church of England can become the British monarch because we risk providing legal advice. Which is probably why no one has done that.

Actually I considered reverting Medeis, but since they removed it under Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, I decided to wait and see whether the WMF did anything(*). Nothing seemed to happen from the WMF as I expected. But I didn't end up reverting. Even though the discussion there didn't seem to apply to YNS's current circumstances, I was uncomfortable enough with some of the things YNS said elsewhere that I felt it best to let the issue drop.

(*) I presume Medeis did email the WMF as that is a key part of how we respond to people who may be considering self-harm as evidenced by the advice they cited. Deleting comments because you feel they suggest the person could be considering self-half, but not doing any followup would be a very serious breach of protocol as there's a strong risk you could make things worse.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we have two separate issues here:

1. Is User:Medies gaming and/or violating the rules in an effort to prevent User:Yanping Nora Soong's question(s) from being answered? IMHO, yes - clearly. These are really obviously not homework or professional-advice kinds of questions - they don't violate any rules - so this is clearly a misuse of WP:RD - and that should stop. It's a well-meaning, somewhat mild misuse - but Medies needs to be clear that no one user is judge, jury and executioner. A slap on the wrist as a reminder of that would be a welcome outcome - but nothing too heavy-handed.
2. Are User:Yanping Nora Soong's questions acceptable at the reference desks? Well, there are no rules, policies or guidelines saying you can't ask questions about very dangerous chemistry experiments - and Misplaced Pages is not censored...so, yeah, they are acceptable. Should we step in and informally request that similar questions not be asked in the future? Well, maybe - but it can only be a polite request, we have no rules to make this a strong demand or a block or ban or anything of the kind.

That's really as far as ANI needs to rule here.

HOWEVER there is a case for having a debate - absent the issues surrounding misbehavior from Medies or really terrible (but "acceptable") questions from Yanping. I don't think that debate should happen here - this is not a place for the formulation of guidelines. There should be a discussion over on the WP:RD talk page.

Meanwhile, absent some new rule/guideline/policy - I'd encourage everyone to remember that while it is currently OK to ask questions of this sort - we're not required to give answers to them! I'd strongly recommend that if someone asks a question on a topic for which you think an answer might pose some sort of grave risk - then DON'T ANSWER IT!. Feel free to explain the dangers.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles only. Please re-read it. BMK (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not. BMK (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Two wrong answers that have been tried and failed vs. one right answer that hasn't been tried

While purposely not commenting on the actions of Yanping Nora Soong (others are handling that just fine), and assuming for the sake of argument that everything Medeis/μηδείς did was right this time, it is a demonstrable fact that Medeis/μηδείς keeps ending up here at ANI, and a certainty that she will be back here again and again, all because of deleting or collapsing other people's comments on the help desks.

Wrong answer #1: Block and/or topic ban Medeis/μηδείς. This is the wrong answer because she does a lot of good work, and because the community does not have a consensus to do either.

Wrong answer #2: Do nothing and let this go on forever. This is the wrong answer because many of the Medeis/μηδείς removals are highly contentious and controversial, and are really disruptive.

Right Answer: Restrict Medeis/μηδείς from one activity -- editing what other editors post. There are plenty of other help desk regulars who have proven themselves able to identify what needs removing and take action without any drama or controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty torn on that issue. On the one hand, you're right--this has been a problem area for Medeis. On the other hand, that's a bitter pill to hand an editor--getting restricted from an activity on one of the occasions that said activity was really probably called for and did the project a favour... I'm also concerned about the message that this will send to YNS, who so far has had some real issues with conforming themselves to our policies and is, at best, only partially WP:HERE. I have serious concerns that restricting Medeis at this juncture will play into the somewhat disruptive behaviours of YNS, as these behaviours seem to me to be partially rooted in a victim-complex attitude that I fear validating here.

Given that Medeis' actions in this instance were not unambigously improper/disruptive and the party opening this thread has put their foot wrong in several places (and only opened this thread to "preempt" Medeis raising their own concerns), I'm leaning towards giving Medeis one more chance on this issue, but advising her that she would be best advised to build consensus for such a move on the red-desk talk page next time, rather than acting unilaterally. I don't make this suggestion lightly; I was 100% prepared to support that Medeis receive just the restriction you are recommending now the last time that I saw this issue come up. But this just seems the entirely wrong context. I'd rather risk one more iteration of this (admittedly recurrent) issue than penalize a contributor for doing the right thing and risk encouraging an editor who shows signs of being much more disruptive on the balance if their recent behaviours were to persist. Snow 03:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken. I see no harm in waiting until the next time Medeis/μηδείς gets reported at ANI, or even waiting for an example of an unambiguously bad deletion. It's not like she is going to stop her disruptive editing of other people's comments, and it's not like people are going to stop complaining about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reference Desks are tailored to serve all readers, even unregistered readers, and are regulated by guidlelines (e.g. no homework, no spamming, no trolling, etc) thus questions do get occasionally get censored thus I view the disputed actions between Medeis and Yanping Nora Soong as part of these pages' content disputes which are more properly raised on the reference desk talkpages and which are not the purpose of ANI to settle. Regarding alleged gross misbehavior which is well-meaning advice that can be seen as bordering on bullying above, (in the form of do more editing to mainspace or else (things will end badly)), I'll add WP:VOLUNTEER due to the contributors' worthwhile voluntary contributions. From what I've read thus far, many of the arguments aimed directly at the alleged misbehavior of other editors have not risen to the level of anything actionable, so I suggest closing this without prejudice. --Modocc (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Telling someone that the purpose of an online encyclopedia project is to build an online encyclopedia, and advising them to do more of that and less of other, unproductive, stuff is "bordering on bullying"? I think not, unless the definition of "bullying" has become "telling someone something that is mildly critical or that they otherwise don't want to hear," which I do not believe is the case. BMK (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, and hitting them over the head with the metaphorical stick of WP:NOTHERE, is indeed abusive if they are not doing anything against policy and not even doing anything which WP:NOTHERE lists as problematic.

Misplaced Pages has a Reference Desk. You can't blame people (registered or not) for using it to ask questions they're interested in.

If the concern is that the user is asking questions about doing something medically inadvisable that we don't want to be even indirectly helping him with, let's deal with that as a separate question. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hear, Hear. Yes, User:Medeis gets called out for bad behavior far more often than any other regular ref desk user. At least in the top 3. I keep thinking they might realize eventually that it is not the case that everyone is out to get them, but rather that they are acting problematically. I would support banning Medeis from editing/removing others' posts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) It's not true it hasn't been tried. Or at least it's tried the same way a topic ban or block or Medeis from the reference desk has been tried, i.e it's been proposed and failed. (Note as I said above, Medeis has never really been topic banned from the RD. The brief topic ban was removed after it was found to lack consensus.) See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks for at least one discussion with a similar proposal.

I can't recall and can't be bothered searching if there were ever any other serious proposals. There was definitely talk on the WT:RD, and it was probably mentioned in some discussions at ANI but there may have never been any other proper proposals. Then again, I only recall perhaps 1 or 2 actual topic ban discussions for Medeis anyway. (There were other discussions, but many of them never seemed to have solid proposals for action.)

Incidentally I agree with Snow Rise that it doesn't seem a good idea to use this as an example. Actually I would go as far as to suggest it would be a very bad idea. While there has been very little commentary from people who don't edit the RD at least on occasion, what comments there have been concur with my view that if we do get some real discussion, it's likely there would be a fair amount of support at least for the deletion which started this thread. (Even if not necessarily all aspects of how it was handled.) So using it an example is likely to significantly damage the chance of success of any topic ban.

Incidentally, I've long believed one of the reasons we never got consensus for any action was because there never a good proposal i.e. with good examples (in the form of diffs) of the harm/problems. While I still partially believe that, I think Medeis has reduce their deletion frequency and doesn't edit war of deletions much which has made the need and likelihood of action less. (There still seem to be some problematic deletions, including some with weird rationales even some where the deletion was okay, often it just seems sloppy.)

Anyway I mostly wanting to say I've also been wondering for a while now if a big problem is we've lacked any real consensus on what to delete on the RD for a while now. And what balance we do have may be different from how wikipedians outside the RD or at least those wikipedians outside the RD active at AN/ANI would feel about it.

In particular presuming I'm correct about how the deletion which started this is perceived, it highlights the problem. Most of those regulars on the RD who feel the deletion was fine (like me) prefer not to open that can of worms, so we just let it slide. And this isn't the first example. This means it's quite easy to come up with examples which make people think we should continue to let Medeis delete. Even I can see the temptation despite supporting a topic ban on deletions and having seen the mess that can result.

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not claiming I'm any better at avoiding stuff which will make the community outside the RD got WTF. In fact, I'm fairly sure it'll be easy to find examples.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just so, for all of us, I dare wager. The problem is that we've all, over the years, gotten comfortable with the notion that the usual community policies need to be applied to the RefDesks in a very nuanced fashion, owing to its unique format and role on the project. That's a fair position, but the problem is that we all have very idiosyncratic notions of what these nuances mean and just what is permitted--and we've developed them largely in isolation from broader community input. I think we're probably long overdue to take these issues to WP:VPP or WP:CD for serious discussion, both because we have no special mandate to go on our merry way when it comes to policy and broad community consensus and also because positions on the RefDesk talk page long ago grew entrenched, to the point where no meaningful reform of our approach ever occurs, even for issues that have been evident for years now. Snow 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Medeis has long been one of the most disruptive editors on the RefDesk, she has been known to tell direct lies about other editors (including myself) to "support" her unilateral and highly idiosyncratic interpretations of guidelines and policies. She seems to view the desks as her personal domain, and the rest of us with contempt. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the underlying problems is that there's a pretty significant mismatch between the de jure list of topics that are prohibited on the Reference Desks, versus the de facto set that we end up arguing about. Right now, the formal list is:

• Medical advice
• Legal advice
• Requests for opinions or debate
• Homework questions (discouraged if not prohibited)

People also tend to be concerned about (and occasionally formally sanction, i.e. by hatting or deleting):

• Requests involving professional advice of any kind
• Requests involving illegal behavior
• Requests involving dangerous behavior

Now, I'm sorry to sound snide, but as of today, with no sanctions against Medeis, there's one more item on the de facto list:

• Anything Medeis doesn't like

If you post a question or an answer that Medeis doesn't like, she will hat it or delete it as she sees fit, and argue about it without reference to actual policy, more or less indefinitely. Most people don't have as much patience as she does for these arguments, so she often gets what she wants. This tends to end up being pretty disruptive. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion of YNS' refdesk questions

Quite apart from the question of Medeis' behavior, I'm concerned about YNS' numerous questions to the ref desk as I have understood them in general from the above reports. (1) It seems that YNS is using the questions to aid in self-medicating or self-treating; (2) It seems the experiments queried are or can/could possibly be dangerous. My concern is that should something untoward ensue to YNS as a result of answers or advice given at the ref desk, her relatives could sue WMF. So I'm worried that we (Misplaced Pages/WMF) are getting into potentially problematic territory by answering these numerous questions. Lastly, as some people have opined above, I think repeatedly asking such types of questions at the ref desk may be in violation of the ref desks policies, guidelines, rules, and intentions. I can see asking one or a small handful of questions for personal use, but asking numerous questions for the same personal purpose, and potentially dangerous ones at that, probably is in violation of the guidelines, and if so should be discouraged or even stopped. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid question, but it is indeed quite apart from the question of Medeis's behavior, so I would suggest discussing it in a separate thread. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. ). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits (), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ( and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion (). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk (, until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past (), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ( For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Misplaced Pages. — Bilorv_(talk) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very fairly clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions altogether.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Misplaced Pages principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on wikipedia while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was only a discussion four months ago after you arbitrarily removed Southern Levant from dozens of articles. It was suggested that you engage in dialog. It seemed that we HAD come to an agreement, as the page wasn't modified for four months, only to have you again go back to removing Southern Levant from dozens of pages, along with proposing to have an associated category deleted at the same time. Your editing behavior on this subject, random breaks of 1/3 of a year or several years, is not commensurate with collaborative editing. Nor, btw, are personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had any nefarious intentions I would not have notified you before my edits. How do you explain why I bothered to notify you? I am actively trying to gain your trust, but your suspicions appear to run very deep. I promise you if you take a cold shower and come back and look at all of this you may realize that you have misinterpreted and overreacted on a number of recent occasions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow the passive aggression and condescension of the above message to speak for itself. Obviously posting a notice seconds before abruptly editing 22 ARBPIA articles in seven minutes, 3 months after the conclusion of the discussion is not collaboration. Drsmoo (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least accept that I felt this to be a reasonable method of collaboration? I inform you, I use HotCat to make the edits in a clearly labelled fashion, and then you have the opportunity to revert the ones you disagree with. Which you have now done with 9 articles. It is just more efficient, because we don't have to discuss the 13 that we both agree with. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, overwriting an admin's redirect and constantly removing links and references to the region across wikipedia is not reasonable. You've already stated the Southern Levant to be and I have yet to see you make any edits related to this subject that weren't either deleting links to it, deleting images from pages, or trying to have categories and articles related to the region deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE JonFreeD AlekSmith7

Nenad_Gligo_Vrhovac: JonFreeD (talk · contribs) created this hoax article and AlekSmith7 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion tags from it. Clear socking and NOTHERE. IMO waste of wikipedians' time, seen from page history must be severely punished. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem - The article you mentioned has been deleted as a G3. If you suspect sock puppetry, you need to open a case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations - have you done this? Since the article is deleted, the contributions of both accounts no longer are listed (I assume that their contributions were only made to that article). However, looking at their logs, I see that they were created within a day of one another. If the accounts are no longer causing disruption, a block might not be performed until they do so (since blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I'll leave that for an admin to review and decide. Bottom line: if you suspect sock puppetry, open an SPI case. ~Oshwah~ 06:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Social networking by United kingdoms my home

User:United kingdoms my home has done almost nothing but social networking and userpage adornment on this site. I sent them a message asking them not to carry on, but they removed it without response and have continued misusing other editors' talk pages. If not checked, this behaviour may encourage others to treat our site in the same way. I think an admin's final warning may be in order: Noyster (talk), 18:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is definitely only making edits to others' talk pages or his own userspace. While I'm not seeing a blatant violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (he's not using Misplaced Pages to host a blog, uploading files and using Misplaced Pages as a hosting service, that kind of stuff...) - he is editing in a manner that scratches that policy. I must admit that I haven't added discussion to this kind of an ANI report in some time (I'm used to giving my $.02 on ANI threads that involve much bigger and disruptive fish), so I'll abstain from making a recommendation for action. However, I will say that WP:NOTHERE can apply in this case. ~Oshwah~ 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Noyster Perhaps you can tell him that WP:NOTHERE can lead to his editing privileges being taken away? I don't think that we should come down on newbies like a ton of bricks, so perhaps we can coax him to start editing articles. If he starts working on articles I have no beef with him decorating his own userspace. To be frank I have no idea what pleasure/output he derives from this activity. This is not likea blog etc which is for public. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I was on the fence about taking any action; he's not being disruptive - we should assume good faith here, and I think this is the most appropriate thing to do. ~Oshwah~ 12:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pity we cannot apply a block on all edits except article space. Activities seem to have slowed down but if there is another burst as on Jan 3, I would suggest a month block as a warning. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth - A month block, huh? I'd probably start at a few days first, then a week if it continues. A month seems kind of harsh :-) ~Oshwah~ 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked User:Religions Explorer using different sockpuppet IP's

@Nyttend: So...basically 1 week blocked user @Religions Explorer: is clearly socking and being disruptive deleting talk pages again. Please do something admins. --92slim (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another IP too. --92slim (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked one. But with an edit summary " (Undid revision 699606910 by 92slim (talk) I don't consider myself to be blocked)" suggests that they are not going to stop. As does their talk page response to the block: "You son of a bitch. I don't care if you block this acount or not jackass. God damn you and all the nasty trolls on this website--Explorer999 (talk) 4:56 am, Today (UTC+0)"Looks like a ban and a range block are needed, but I don't do range blocks. I am however blocking indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Whaddya mean, you don't do range blocks?!?!?" _Fortuna 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Well, I haven't ever done a range block and there's a level of technical expertise that I don't have and would have to acquire. At the moment that would be a use of my time that might eat into other activities here, in particular my ArbCom work. It might be more fun to learn about them and start doing them than to work on cases, etc., but that's a pleasure I think I shall have to forgo for a while. See the comments in the section below. If User:Only in death writes the guide mention, maybe I'll try. I've wished before I could do them but I really don't want to end up blocking half a continent. :-) Doug Weller talk 11:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, a small city as far as you'll get :) I've done my first ever yesterday and documented what I did here - if you got time, would appreciate a read through from someone who hasn't done any so far and tell me if it makes sense. MLauba 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In some cases Doug / MLauba that might be an improvement _Fortuna 14:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MLauba, won't that depend on the country and network? Doug Weller talk 17:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Doug WellerNetwork yes, since there's actually no way to predict how many physical users are subscribed to a set of IPs. On the other hand, there are vast amount of IPs within pretty much any contiguous range of 255 addresses (that's a rangeblock of /24, much broader than what I used here) that have never edited Misplaced Pages in the first place. Short, narrow, soft blocks do little harm. Even the much broader /18 range that User:SQL suggested below has little activity - half of everything that comes out of that pool is related to this report, the other half is mostly harmless. MLauba 13:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly blocked user socking (and admitting it)

I didn't see the report above when posting this, so making it a subsection as it's about the same issue It gets a bit repetitive to be back for the third day running concerning the highly disruptive user Religions Explorer. On Monday, the user was given a short block , came back yesterday even more disruptive and was blocked for a week . This first lead to a highly uncivil outburst before returning to the same article with different IPs to continue, openly admitting it's the same user, even continuing to sign as Religions Explorer , and declaring not acknowleding the block , . No need to start an SPI as the user admits the sockpuppetry, but I suggest a permanent block on Religions Explorer (three days in a row at ANI) who has shown himself to be extremely disruptive, and to semi-protect Talk:Muhammad for a while given the dynamic IP use. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL WTF. Seriously, this guy needs an indef block. --92slim (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard blocked the IP for a week for evasion. SQL 09:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@SQL:@Jeppiz: OMG seriously, ANOTHER IP??? wtf --92slim (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think @Jeppiz: is right, either semi-protect the TP and/or range block. --92slim (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Talk for a week, but I'll leave the range block to another admin. MLauba 10:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Help on range blocks. Help on IPv6 range blocks. If you dont have the time or inclination to learn how, see here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, I gave it a shot. Pinging NativeForeigner, HJMitchell or Mike V from the list of admins willing to do rangeblocks to check I didn't goof - I blocked a *.16/28 range for starters. Feedback and trouts welcome. MLauba 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC) dunno about rangeblocks but pings ain't my thing - HJ Mitchell was who I meant to ping. MLauba 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Initiate ban discussion now so any and all edits can be reverted on site with maximum prejudice. If you don't abide by the community's policies then you're not welcome here. Blackmane (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support; this has gotten to the top of the ramp (see my comment of 00:04, 13 January 2016), so we need to acknowledge that fact and not bother giving any further consideration to this guy. Note that I've read those "how to make rangeblocks" pages several times, but I still don't understand them well enough to perform them unless someone else tells me what range I should be blocking. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, @MLauba: I just got home from work, and looked into the first IP in question - it belongs to DigitalOcean, a virtual server hosting service. The IP in question is running a VPN service (or, at least, port 1723 is open), I think we can safely rangeblock 104.236.128.0/18 without affecting much legitimate traffic. I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and duration of the block. SQL 19:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess its easier if you do calculations all day. I will admit they are factually accurate but dont function very well as a 'how to block X ip without taking out half the continent' tutorial. If I have some time later this month I will write one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Or, maybe, we just need you to become an Admin. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several legitimate editors on that range, so check with a CU if you plan on hardblocking it. Assuming it's just a softblock, however, it should be fine. NativeForeigner 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of further problems within that /18 range that would justify any other admin actions at this time. If problems resume once semi protection wears off, we can revisit this, but at present, I think this is due closure. MLauba 13:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Robsinden

TL;DR:

• After an addition stays on a page for an entire week, user boldly removes it, then after being reverted repeats it four more times: .
• When I point it out, user justifies their part in the edit war: .
• User alters my comment on template talk page: .
• I warn user to cease from further disruptive actions: .
• User's reaction: calls me an idiot and removes my warning. .

I would appreciate guidance on how to deal with this type of bullying. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In order of presentation.

• Content dispute. You have rightly been discussing it on the TP, but frankly both parties seem to have descended into a slanging match. Consider a WP:RFC or the Project page.
• Telling another editor to WP:BRD does not an edit war make.
• Best practice is not to refactor others' comments; but it was only linkage and therefore could be claimed to be a helpful addition.
• Which you have both been responsible for.
• Well; rather uncalled for. But then you did threaten him with a board, which is hardly in accord with WP:AGF.
  

Nothing to see here. Please move along. Move along. Move along. _Fortuna 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So... I guess it's OK for some to behave in a bullyish manner and blatantly break basic rules, as long as you don't like what the other editor is doing. While my behavior was not perfect either, Robsinden's was unjustifiable. And regardless of WP:BRD (which was not violated by me, as I already explained), 5 consecutive reverts are not OK - and yes, neither are they OK on my side. There are also no butts for calling me an idiot.

But hey, thanks for completely dismissing my concern. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Robsinden templated me with 3RR, so... accusing me of breaking AGF by "threatening" (really???) with a noticeboard is, well, in your own words - rather uncalled for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cinterminous Comment As I said ^ _Fortuna 13:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who can actually deal with my concern? I feel like I am at an empty sheriff's office. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment shouldn't have been edited by another editor. It seems like you both exceeded 3RR on that template page. As for being called an idiot, it is definitely not civil but I think most of us have been called worse. And admins are reluctant to block long-standing editors for breaches in civility. I think the best thing for this logjam between the two of you is for more editors to participate in this talk page discussions as there is a fair amount of animosity between you two now. I hope this fades over time but right now, you need a few more editors to weigh in on your subjects of disagreements. Liz 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I second Liz's response. It's a scratch in the civility policy; it definitely was not needed and only makes matters worse. However, the best thing you can do is brush it aside, focus on content and not on the editor, and try and come to a peaceful resolution. If anything, take a break, walk away, and focus on something else for awhile so that any flames might settle. ~Oshwah~ 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not looking to get anyone blocked, only to be assured that being a long-standing editor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for acting in a condescending and unapologetic manner. I'd elaborate but I risk breaking civility myself. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - Your statement is 100% true. Tenure, status, permissions, involvement, whatever - does not matter. All editors should be treated with respect, and all editors should be expected to be respectful to others. It doesn't matter who you are. :-) ~Oshwah~ 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just done so. _Fortuna 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt notified Robsinden as required. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Izno, we know; I don't think anyone said he had not? _Fortuna 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all the way to the end of the line to which I was replying. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he gets a pat on the back. So much for treating everyone equally. Maybe I should just insult more editors so I can become one of them "long-standing" ones, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Wow. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I unconditionally apologise for allowing my frustration at your actions get the better of me and using the word "idiot" in my edit summary. It won't happen again. I hope we can all move on now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess a backhanded apology is as good as it gets. Moving on. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if the OP is now withdrawing the complaint, but I'd like to point out that Robsinden's tenure and so forth have no bearing on the matter. What does matter though is that EauZenCashHaveIt was edit-warring instead of observing WP:BRD, and moreover insisted that Robsinden owed him an apology for his reverts. Although Wikipedians must avoid WP:OWNERSHIP, since Robsinden created and titled the navbox, he effectively established its title and parameters as being "Netflix original programming". If something was discovered to have been added counter to that parameter, he or anyone was within rights to remove it, and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (i.e., some sort of proof and consensus that it meets the already established parameters of the navbox) are necessary before replacing it. In the lengthy discussion on the talk page, there does not seem to be such a consensus, so the item should not be re-added. If EauZenCashHaveIt still feels strongly that it applies or belongs, the next step would be some form of WP:DR, such as an WP:RfC. In any case, I suggest closing this discussion before it boomerangs on the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first time opening an ANI and it is with some discomfort that I bring it up regarding a historically constructive another established editor.(edited 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)) However the continued and renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle continues to be disruptive to the project. Multiple attempts have been made at correction over the years including:

• 2009 RfC
• 2012 AN
• 2012 ArbCom Case
• 2013 ANI with subsequent pledge
• 2014 Editor review
• 2015 Reminder of his Pledge

My first interaction with this editor was during a move review where I was the target of the move review. As such I clearly have a conflict of interest in the matter. However it is in that venue that the tendentious attributes of this editor arose again. At one point I reminded the editor of his pledge, and he was quiet for some time, but then, after the article had been effectively stable and settled since December 2, over a month later he jumps back into the fray and continues his argument of the point - illustrating his believe which he links to on his userpage about WP:The_Last_Word. The result is this move review has created such a wall of text, I don't believe anyone dare try to close it. Actually one non-admin tried to, and got it wrong, although it really was in good faith. And subsequently I JethroBT took his best stab to clean it up. But it is still a huge mess that most people would shy away from editing.

During this move review, where the objective is to discuss the merits of the close and if it follows WP:RMCI, instead Born2cycle either introduced or spurred on discussions including:

• Continuing to argue his point about why the move is valid - WP:REHASH
• Arguing semantics over "opponent" being a WP:BATTLEGROUND term
• Arguing what WP:CONSENSUS means or attempting to redefine it
• Arguing about BLP validity as it related to this article
• Failure to assume good faith of other contributors
• Boarderline WP:NPA violations, including flinging accusations

He appears to approach contentious subjects as battles to be won, such as his essay on Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle. It is also illustrated in his extreme positions and over-discussing the point, including his dissenting view on:

• Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie album)
• Talk:Bell (disambiguation)

That is in addition to his massive edits and discussions at the initial move request and subsequent move review. Reviewing his contribution history, it seems most of the articles he is getting into recently have been controversial and is being tendentious in his editing and attempting to get his way. His recent, and WP:LASTWORD on the Move Review today was simply the last straw. I reminded him of his pledge, but he has skirted right past that. I know the pledge was years ago, but it still seems valid today based on his current editing patterns.

My contention with him isn't over the move review, because honestly the move closure could have been handled better (but I still stand behind the actual closure itself), and I would actually be okay with it being overturned. It has to do with the behavior of this editor and how he completely drowns out the discussion and consensus process by pushing his point of view ad nauseam.

My desired outcome of this would be simply a reinstatement of the limited discussion ban and helping Born2Cycle get the point about his activities (ie WP:LISTEN, WP:TLDR and his own pledge). He appears to have great knowledge about WP:ARTICLETITLE and would hate to loose his experience and expertise as he often brings up good points of views - but simply argues them to such a degree. A less desirable, but possible necessary one would be to actually topic ban him from article moves -- a harsh move, but based on historical evidence going back multiple years, through multiple AN/RFC/ANI/ArbCom processes, it might be finally time. How much more should we excuse productivity for abuse of process, good faith and other editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Without getting into the above too much (I have to think about how I'd like to respond) if nothing comes out of this other than someone finally ending that damn move discussion that's been going on since October, this will have been a productive thread. I am entirely willing to chalk up what is perceived as tendentious editing in that thread as frustration over the lack of response from the administrators. Get on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was closed in October / November...? _Fortuna 16:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And it has been at move review ever since. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Did Tiggerjay really refer to Born2Cycle as "a historically constructive editor"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: okay perhaps a little over generous with "historically constructive", but he has good points and probably 50% of the time his views on moves are inline with my understanding of policy (and community consensus). He had a good grasp of several policies and is working to make the project better, AGF. However, when his views are opposite of the major consensus he becomes quite tendentious in editing, and effectively (intentionally or not) bullies other editors to agreeing or simply walking away from the discussion. When he goes beyond two or three replies in a discussion things go from constructive to ugly really quickly. HOWEVER with all of that said, how much longer do we need to put up with corrective actions for this editor? Tiggerjay (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for what it is worth I did a quick look back at how B2C has participated in move requests between September to present. Again we need to consider more than !vote counting, but it seems that most of the time when B2C's position is not in line with consensus he becomes tendentious. This also illustrates that more than half of the time his position is in line with consensus. Of 19 different moves he participated in:

• 11 (58%) he voted in line with consensus - and generally posted only once
• 8 (42%) the result was not in line with his !vote - during those discussions he posted an average of 8 times and often more than any other single editor on that discussion. This activity might be expected of a RM nom, but not of simply another contributor.

Jumping over to the move triggering the MR he was the number one editor to that section as well as over at the move review itself. Overall it seems this editor throws a fit whenever consensus is not going his way. When his position on a move is on target, his comments are helpful. When he is a dissenting view, he becomes abusive. Other editors, non-discussion closers, and admins shouldn't have to continue to put up with this sort of nonsense. He simply doesn't know when to drop the stick. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding Tiggerjay's analysis above, I had made a similar observation in the Kim Davis move review about Born2cycle's history of repeatedly reopening move discussions until they get their way. He interpreted it as a personal attack, which inspired me to write the essay don't abuse the no personal attacks policy (which is not a response to B2C, just some general observations, but B2C made me think about it). My comment in the move review was based only on a cursory review of B2C's history on the Kim Davis talk page and encountering their Yogurt Principle essay. I had no idea that this pattern goes back over six years and has been the subject of an ArbCom case.

Indeed the last two points of Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors sound as though they were written specifically with Born2cycle in mind; this is his pattern exactly. I am just one in a very long and growing list of editors to have tried to explain to him that WP:CONSENSUS is not achieved by bludgeoning, filibustering and spin-doctoring until your opponents give up, it's achieved by considering your fellow editors' positions and working to achieve common ground. He subscribes to a minor but unfortunate misinterpretation of WP:CONSENSUS; this is evident in his many move discussions and clamouring to rehash contentious discussions which were not decided favourably in his view (evident in his marking of expiry dates of various move request moratoriums on his user page). CONSENSUS suggests that the closer of a discussion should consider the weight of arguments, and discard those which are poorly-supported or incoherent. B2C has a very extreme, black-and-white interpretation of this, relentlessly insisting that any argument which incorporates a project- or user-space essay be wholly disregarded. The problem is that these arguments are very often constructive ones with highly valid points, and B2C's attempts to shout over those points leads to pointless off-topic arguments, walls of text, and long messes of discussions where no consensus can ever be determined. See Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) for the archetypal example.

B2C also refuses to listen to other editors when they express frustration with his repeated WP:REHASHing of issues. In the lead-up to the most recent move review, three editors ( , myself included) directly asked him to drop the stick and accept the no-consensus result; somehow B2C interpreted this as support for opening a move review.

I don't know what the appropriate course of action is here, but I think we are heading toward some kind of comment restriction for B2C on move requests. An outright topic ban would be a horrible loss to the project, as Born2cycle is indeed an expert in the titles policy and his input is valuable. But his inability to respect consensus and let things go, and insistence on getting the last word also work horribly against his expertise, because his involvement in move discussions most often directly leads to trainwrecks where consensus is impossible to determine. So, I'm open to suggestions.

Also, I'm going to use every comment I make in this thread to request that Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) be finally closed by an administrator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Other examples include: Gangsta. and Bell discussions. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Misplaced Pages on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits (). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" , but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism ,,) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies and a couple dictionary definitions including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition. For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, having already suggested it at great length in 2014. See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions, the majority of his long Misplaced Pages career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User attacking admins because their page was deleted through G7

Eatl33t1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 2 pages, US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, and Deschloroetizolam, both of which were deleted around January 6. The first one was deleted through WP:G7 as they blanked the page, and the second was deleted through an AFD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deschloroetizolam. On January 12, they contacted me on my talk page with this message:

Why am I getting like 7 messages?

All about the same 2 articles? Over and over. From Multiple users. What are you people like moderators or something? Once was enough, I got it. Now I keep getting spammed to death by multiple users, It's like get off my back already, please. I'm not gonna make any more pages for ages, OK? Now will yall leave me alone? " BoxOfChickens left a message on your talk page in "January 2016". Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, without giving a valid reas... "Lpl

You people asked (forced) me to remove the content from my "Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015" page, which I spent all day making. I was forced by some nazi staff here to remove all the content of my article that I put my heart in, my sweat and tears.

The message he is quoting in question was a warning I accidentally left on their talk page after they blanked the article. I removed the notice after I saw that they had created the article and I then tagged it for speedy deletion.

I replied back with this message and left a harassment warning on their talk page:

You were not forced by anyone to remove the content of your article. Because you blanked it, it implies that you want it to be deleted, so it was. Please see WP:REFUND if you want your content back. It also appears that you got only 2 messages about articles you created.

They replied:

No, I got 8 messages in all, redundant as shit, you want me to show you my inbox with 8 people messing with me? When I only made a change to one article which was accurate (all my changes are accurate) and I created two pages, one was summarily deleted, the second got all it's content deleted, leaving the title of the page, they gave some bullshit nazi reason about why I couldnt create a US Synthetic drug act of 2015-2016 page, even with 100% accurate info and the page doesn't exist here, same with my benzo article I made from scratch, I spent all day on that, I'm pissed. What kind of fucking page can I create? whatever I do will get deleted and my inbox will get spammed by this bias NAZI fuckin staff. Eatl33t1111 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) -Eatl33t1111 out.

I replied with another message and left another harassment warning on their talk page:

The first page was deleted due to a community discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deschloroetizolam. The second article was deleted because you voluntarily removed the content of the page, implying that you want it deleted. If you want it back, you can do that at WP:REFUND. Also, don't throw your toys out of the pram. That includes calling people Nazis (example in a previous Misplaced Pages discussion). BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) You may have gotten 8 messages in your inbox (not your talk page) because your pages were deleted or you were mentioned in an AfD or noticeboard discussion. I can't comment on what would have happened in that situation as I have not had a page I created deleted or been mentioned on a noticeboard. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What should I do?

BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If a user is getting increasingly upset by messages left on their talk page, I'd suggest you stop leaving them messages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that they are talking about talk page messages, but rather the messages in their notifications that their pages were deleted and the necessary deletion notifications on their talk page. They do not seem to understand that blanking a page is an implied request for deletion, and think that they were forced to delete their page. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did not appear to welcome your first attempt to explain - so just walk away and leave them alone is my suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Or they may be talking about emails, but same deal. ansh666 19:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What should you do? Stop biting the newcomers. Yeah, sure, you didn't leave all those messages, but I doubt the user was hallucinating when he said You people asked (forced) me to remove the content from my "Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015" page. Argyriou (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He received polite messages on his talk page and polite responses to his shrill complaints on other people's talk pages. No one was "biting" him whatsoever, even when he was calling other people Nazis. ChemNerd (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ChemNerd had added the following to US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, which Eatl33t1111 might have interpreted as a request to blank:

{{Proposed deletion/dated|concern = This is a proposed bill with little chance of passing.  It is therefore not notable and may fall afoul of ].  Misplaced Pages should wait until it does pass (if ever) and then an article can be considered.|timestamp = 20160106150609}}

Assuming they haven't taken to roaming Misplaced Pages destructively, this thread isn't really actionable. They've been uncivil, yes (I'm biased and a Nazi? That's news to me), but understandably so, given that many of their first contributions have been rejected. Best to let it be for now. Come back if they start making a mess. larryv (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Historian (NOTHERE)

• Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user uploads files, claiming them to be his (when obviously not), releasing them into PD (see Commons:User talk:Albanian Historian). He created a very problematic "The Defense of Plava and Gucia". He created a copyvio, povfork "The Expulsion of Albanians". He has removed tags on both articles. He added this, very interesting, section about Anti-Slavism in Kosovo (please read). He consistenly claims that a toponym which dates to the Middle Ages is derived from the Albanian word for "flashlight", despite me urging him to use reliable sources, and not articles from low-quality ultra-nationalist sites supporting Greater Albania (such as this). He uses these sources in the articles he edits. I added a RS clarifying the toponym, upon which he readded the unreliable source, and commented: Your source is used for irrendentist claims. Provide arguments. Change reverted. Source is reliable. So, my argument is that this user is WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 18:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

...and he called me a "fascist, irredentist nationalist", and claims that his articles are "important and provides a different perspective, aside from the very Pro-slav, fascist versions." Need I say more?--Zoupan 18:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I am new to wiki and i mistakenly uploaded files as my own. I am providing proper sources and Mr Zoupan deletes them claiming they are not reliable. Its a matter of discussion then. The Expulsion of the Albanians, to which i already responded, you may read for yourself to see if Zoupans claims really are true. As for the part with ultra-nationalistic sources, ironically, Zoupan himself is the very nationalist who deletes my edits with no counter-arguments nor sources to back up his statements while i've written several articles with proper sources, not engaging anyone. Ironically, the Expulsion of the Albanians main source is written by a Serb journalist. Mr Zoupan has been constantly persecuting my posts because he does not fancy Albanian history for some reason although i've provided both Albanian and Montenegrin sources for many articles. If mr Zoupan cannot provide counter-arguments, calling my sources "ultra-nationalist" when they are not, then it is mr Zoupan who ought to re-consider. I am not here to fight. I am here to provide Albanian history, and that is it. As for mr Coupons fascist claims and constant persecution of my posts, failing to provide with proper arguments and sources for his edits, i find his reliability very lacking... --Albanian Historian (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for one hour for NPA violation. Calling someone fascist on ANI is hardly a compelling argument why we should want to keep this person here. I have linked several policies on their talk page and will link more, and hope they will use their one hour off to read these and learn. KillerChihuahua 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to double check, but don't Albanian articles fall under the Arbcom remedies for the Balkans? Blackmane (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE? BMK (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He keeps adding the same unreliable source with dubious claims (1, 2).--Zoupan 08:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but Zoupan and Sideshow Bob have been trying to remove another article as biased by placing a prod tag on it; when I removed the tag, saying that biased articles can be fixed, they each of them, separately have restored it.I have warned them accordingly. (They can of course take it to afd if they think it unfixable). DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• And FWIW, the relevant Arbitration remedy is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which applies to the entire Balkans area, broadly interpreted. The editors would need to be individually warned first on their talk pages. They cannot be sanctioned under it for actions before they have been warned. Any editor in good standing may issue a warning. (this does not prevent normal administrative action even if they have not been so warned--it only applies to the special nature of discretionary sanctions). DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Suratfill

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

Multiple attack pages, and unambiguous advertising. Block Please? TF 19:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Phasefive

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

This user has the name of the boyband whose article they just created. It was obviously promotional.

Despite this, at a quick glance the group looks potentially notable (some articles, verified on Twitter, 79,000 followers) so as an interim step I put in a few citations and cut the promotional language and put warnings on their talk page. They reverted my changes immediately. Blythwood (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've softerblocked for the WP:U violation and left a note about COI and NPOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

RPP backlog

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

Can someone take a look at WP:RPP please? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog is handled, WP:AN would be a better place in the future. SQL 01:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Scjessey! Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard is the proper place for these kinds of notices instead of here. This noticeboard is for incidents that require administrator attention or intervention (i.e. disruptive accounts or editors, violations of policy, etc). WP:RPP is usually pretty well caught up when it comes to backlogging; someone will review the request queue soon, I can imagine. :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State

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

NapoleonX has changed the title "United States Secretary of State" to "Secretary of State" but each state in the union has a Secretary of State so it is ambiguous. Is there a way to revert them all at once? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are state secretary of states's they are called state secretary of states. Eg. Washington Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is what you call the foreign minister in another country. It's Secretary of State John Kerry, not United States Secretary of State John Kerry. NapoleonX (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I just checked, the state secretaries of state are called "Secretary of State of Florida" or whatever state applies.NapoleonX (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I changed what showed in the box under the Secretaries of State from United States Secretary of State to Secretary of State, but left the link on the name, so if somebody clicked on it, it still goes to the page "United States Secretary of State" and explains the role of the Secretary of State in the United States.NapoleonX (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, but should probably be undone so a WP:RM can be started by NapoleonX.(see below) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that NapoleonX did not move United States Secretary of State, but has changed a number of articles about a variety of secretaries of state. This is purely a content dispute, it would seem. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What you did, IMO, is totally screw up all those articles. You added extra links and it just looks much worse. Some of the USDOS have multiple offices, and they all have the US in front and others have the ## linked the the List article and then the DOS part linked to the DOS article. It's just a big mess you did. Sir Joseph 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look what you did to Frank_B._Kellogg, and look at the difference now between Philander_C._Knox. You need the US part, how would we know if they are the US SOS or a State SOS? When you look at the words Secretary of State, I need to know if it's a State or US SOS. I should not have to click on the link first. Your edits were very disruptive. Sir Joseph 03:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look at the official webpage for the Department of State, they call him the Secretary of State. It doesn't say United States Secretary of State, that's only on WP. Why should it be United States Secretary of State? The state secretaries of state are called secretary of state of Washington, or whatever the state's named. NapoleonX (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. If I go to the US SOS website, I know I'm going to the US SOS website. If I go to a person's bio on WP, and I see a title Secretary of State, how do I know if he was a US or a State SOS? Sir Joseph 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Sir Joseph All I did was shorten the title from the unnecessary incorrect title, the title is Secretary of State, not United States Secretary of State. I left the link on it, so if you clicked it, it went to the page for American Secretaries of State, so it explained the role of the Secretaries of State in the United States. NapoleonX (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC) The problem is that they put United States in front of all those titles. That was unnecessary. The actual titles are Secretary of State, not United States Secretary of State. I looked at the United Kingdom offices, it doesn't say United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Why should it be that way for the American Secretary of State? The state secretaries of state's titles are Secretary of State of Florida (for Florida) and Secretary of (State name) for the other state secretaries of state.NapoleonX (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you are in the wrong location, secondly the title is US-SOS. How are we to know just by looking at the words SOS if the person is a US or State SOS? You can't bring the UK into it, there are no individual states in the UK to compare to. Sir Joseph 03:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't comment on user talk pages if there's an incident open here. You still don't get it. There aren't more than one UK Secretary of State. There's only one. There may be more than one former. But there's 51 current US and State Secretary of States. When you just see Secretary of State on a person's page, how are you to know if he was a US Secretary of State or a Delaware Secretary of State. The UK is not divided into States, the US is. I do not know why you are bringing the UK or other countries into this, the US is unique. Just like they have US Senate or PA Senate on the bios. Sir Joseph 03:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this is a content dispute. It doesn't belong here. Thanks. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can get a mass reversion? This does need to be undone, all the pages are not in sync and it would take a long time to revert manually. Sir Joseph 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I was discussing in the wrong place. Where do you post for a content dispute? NapoleonX (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey NapoleonX, you don't need to hit "new section" every time you want to reply. Anyhow, you all might want to take it to a relevant talk page, maybe look at WP:DR, or maybe a wikiproject talk page. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update

I've reverted all the mass changes-in-question. Recommend that NapoleonX get a consensus for such edits, next time. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a problem with an editor

This is over the Drake Bell article. Now, this could go under Dispute Resolution, but I think otherwise. The editor in question, User:Winkelvi is placing "citation needed" tags all of a sudden after I edited the article, and we've had a bad history. He ignores any means of me contacting him from his talk page, he will just delete the messages. Or replying to him on mine, yet will get on my talk page whenever. Even when I try to place sources in the article, according to him, it is counted as a revert, to remove the tags. So, there is not really anything I can do to help the article even if I try. Also, he thinks Facebook, Twitter, etc., are unreliable, but according to WP:SELFSOURCE, that premise is wrong. Like I said, tried to address that, ignored it, removed the message and removed those sources anyway. I am slightly starting to think this is spite of previous history, but he said he isn't. I would really think he was, as any hint of me sockpuppeting took place (while I admit, I did during my block), there were certain situations where I was considered a sock when I wasn't, as shown in the Transphobic error section of the article's talk page, whenever I was in any sort of trouble, he called me out, and reported me. He never responded to a single talk page discussion I have formed on there. Also, this is my top edited article with 600+ edits on it.

Note: If I placed this in the wrong place, tell me. I feel I have nowhere else to turn and I don't use the noticeboards much. Update: He is still removing and deeming sources unreliable (self-published sources) and placing the tags. Looks like he may ignore this report as well. Also, to point out, the article had 150+ sources before his source deleting. Now it stands at 116. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph Prasad - I'm sorry to hear that you have a bad history with another editor. Can you provide me with diffs where he placed "citation needed" after your edits? Has he been doing this outside that article and on other articles? Or just in this article? Diffs will help a lot here. ~Oshwah~ 06:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history.

(EC) If this is over problems with an article, it's unlikely to be that urgent to contact Winkelvi personally (i.e. on their talkpage) over this. While editor talk pages are the right place for dealing with personal clashes, issues and discussions and can sometimes be useful when you feel the issue you're discussing about the article isn't going to benefit anyone else or you think a more personal approach is needed (particularly with new editors); it's not an alternative to discussion on the article talk page. If you have disagreements over the article (whether sourcing, content or whatever), the discussion should be on the article talk page. Even if you think the editor's talk page would be a better location, if there editor doesn't seem to disagree you need to take it to the article talk page.

I see a few comments by you on the article talk page which is good, but many of these are questions or suggestions. If you've left an explanation relating to what you planned to do or had done on the article on the article talk page or contesting what was done by others, and Winkelvi has reverted you but never commented on the article talk page then there would probably be a problem for ANI to look at. If they didn't respond but also didn't revert the changes you implemented, then it not so easy to call it a problem regardless whether they are also reverting other things you do. If Winkelvi does respond on the article talk page and you two can't come to an agreement, then you have a WP:Content dispute so look at WP:Dispute Resolution. Notably, if there is dispute over what counts as a RS, try WP:RSN. Note that bringing disagreements about who should have initiated the discussion on the article talk page to ANI is rarely productive.

Ultimately, even if some behaviour isn't ideal, there's a fair chance nothing is going be done about it based on disputes in one article. You'd need to demonstrate the problems are severe enough to warrant it, e.g. WP:diffs where you've initiated discussion on the article talk page but had no response and still been reverted over that particular issue. Personally, if you've raised the issue on the editors talk page (regardless of whether you should have) and they deleted your comments but continued anyway and didn't initiate a discussion on the article talk, I would definitely fault them. But it can get complicated so I always recommend you initiate discussion on the article talk page first before saying there's a problem.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

N.B. I am seeing signs of tagging overkill on the article. While it is a BLP, unless there's some reason why you feel it's untrue, I have to question the utility of tagging simple uncontroversial appearances like "small role in the Seinfeld episode "The Frogger" in 1998" or "guest appearance on the series The Nightmare Room" or "guest appearance as himself on Nickelodeon's Zoey 101" or "cast as Spider-Man in the animated TV series: Ultimate Spider-Man". Particularly when Drake Bell is mention in our articles on these (even if generally also not sourced). For that matter stuff like "released the lead single, "I Know", on October 17, 2006" or "On April 22, 2014, Bell released his third studio album, his first rockabilly album, Ready Steady Go!, under Surfdog Records, with which he signed in 2012". And that's from ~ the first quarter of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history. And if you look at the page history's time stamps, Nil Einne, and this, yes, he removed my comments and continued. I would try to add something to see if he would revert it (I'm sure if I tried to re-add a Facebook source, he would remove it since he deems it unreliable), but ≥I'm already at three reverts in 24 hours on the page, so I can't remove any tags as he sees it as a revert. --

If you want to reply to Oshwah with identing, you should leave your comments above mine, not change my indenting. Take a read of WP:Indent. My indenting was intentional as neither of my comments were a reply to Oshwah, in fact I didn't even see Oshwah's comment when composing my first reply. And I felt my second comment was better stand alone as it largely dealt with seperate issues. BTW you should feel free to move this comment and change it's indenting if you move your comments to but please leave all the others. Also in case you misunderstood my comment, you need to discuss on the article talk page not on Winkelvi's user page. Even if you've already left comments on Winkelvi talk page, you should take it to the article talk page before complaining about lack of discussion since anything else tends to be too unclear for ANI to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Another concerning thing which I noticed from the discussion at SNUGGUMS talk page is that it sounds like Winkelvi is removing dead links even if these were the only sources for the claim and so they were replaced with a cn tag. That's generally wrong, dead links should not be removed, simply tagged using {{deadlink}}, so that other people can try to find a backup of them. It's possible that some of these links weren't reliable sources anyway, but the justification then would be they are unreliable not dead links. And that seems to be the given justification for some, but not all cases. In cases where the info is already sufficiently source removing a dead link even if it is an RS is probably acceptable but again that only seems to be the justification in some cases.

I don't think removing deadlinks for no reason other than being dead is acceptable even if an effort was made to recover the link (see Misplaced Pages:Link rot), but in any case I'm not seeing any signs any effort was made here. Also some of the links had citation details, making recovery easier.

Notably, I don't see the need to remove the dead link here . While it's a primary source and only supports one of the claims (when the deal was signed), the claim isn't particularly contentious and the source itself was trivial to recover via Wayback Machine . If it was replace with a good RS supporting all claims made in the sentence then sure. But replacing it with a cn tag just seems wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I looked a bit more. I only found 2 or 3 other cases where Winkelvi didn't give a reason besides it being a dead link. (I didn't examine the cases where an additional reason like unreliable source or already sourced was given.) The sources are all trivially recoverable.

Disnology.com doesn't exactly sound like a good source, which was confirmed when I recovered it . Also it seems the sort of thing which will be easy to source and which having an existing unreliable source isn't going to help much in finding a reliable source. However the claim isn't exactly contentious and the source does include an alleged direct quote. (Not particularly surprisingly when taken in context, it was also supported by the next source which looks even less reliable and was later removed.) So while it's less obvious a problem than the signing one, I question whether replacing it with a {{cn}} tag was really the best course of action instead of {{dead link}} or {{unreliable source}}.

In the website name sort of makes me think it's unreliable but actually it's a radio station. However the entire URL (with the part about event) does make you wonder whether it's a good source even if a radio station. Recovery confirms it isn't a great source , a listing for an event Drake Bell was at. It also doesn't properly confirm the statement, it confirms he was in the movie and he won the award, but it doesn't actually connect the two. Of course this would only have been known if the source was recovered. Personally despite the misgivings the URL text suggest, I still question whether replacing it with a cn without I presume checking the dead source first was the best course. Or instead tagging it as {{unreliable source}} with explanation if you didn't want to check.

It's unclear to me if invalid source means unreliable or dead . I wouldn't consider a real estate agent blog (using public property records ) a good source for this sort of thing though, although if that was the reason, greater clarity would help. It seems to me the big possible problem here is this info simply isn't significant enough to be included in the article which could be countered by finding a good non tabloid non blog reliable secondary source discussing it. So even here, I'm not certain simply replacing it with a cn tag is the best solution. It seems to me {{unreliable source}} with a brief explanation would be a better one.

P.S. Winkelvi did tag some links with {{dead link}} early on, so I'm a bit confused why they removed others without giving another reason like unreliable or superflorous.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, because this is a BLP, the truth is, without adequate sources, much of this content is eligible to be deleted (per BLP guidelines). Since this was meant to be a housecleaning, and I know a few editors have put time into the article, I felt it better to delete references that weren't needed as well as some from the same source (which was a primary, self-published website of the article subject) stating "invalid" since it was not a good source to begin with and, surely, a better one could be found. The CN tags were, if you take BLP policy seriously, a gift that will allow the content to stand and editors to find sources rather than outright deleting the content. This article has been inadequately referenced for a while. Some sources I left even though they looked arguably dubious to me (a couple were spotted and mentioned above). BLP policy is clear and CN tags seemed the best, reasonable course, rather than cleaning out the article of unsourced content and legitimately pissing off those interested in the article. I'm sure that editors who want to see the article content remain intact can find good sources to replace those CN tags as needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Nosdan at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea

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

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea, E.M.Gregory and I marked accounts that are WP:Single-purpose accounts, which, as experienced Misplaced Pages editors know, is a common practice in AfDs. One of the editors I marked as a single-purpose account is Nosdan (talk · contribs). Other editors might not have marked him as one, and I can understand if some feel that I should not have marked his account as one, but I see no wrong in having marked the others. Nosdan showed up with a personal attack with this edit. I replied. Nosdan then struck through my and E.M.Gregory's comments with this edit. We got into a back and forth revert matter, with me stating that, per WP:Talk, he should leave my comments alone; I also queried if I should bring the matter here to WP:ANI; see this link. Instead, with this edit, I decided that WP:ANI was not needed, and I left a note. He reverted me. I left another note, this time without directly noting that he is a single-purpose account, stating, "You don't get to mess with others' comments and then not let them note that you messed with them. Delete my comment again, and I will indeed take you WP:ANI." He reverted again, stating, "once again undoing personal attack against myself." I don't view noting editors as single-purpose accounts a personal attack when they are one. And the fact remains that single-purpose accounts and sleeper accounts are popping up at that AfD. I should at least be able to note that I did not strike through my comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - I think that labeling someone as a single purpose account could open a nice big can of worms with others (as well as open the door for tempers to flare with those that are accused) - use that with care and at your own risk. Removing that from the equation, I feel that these back-and-fourth reverts went a bit farther than it should have. There's a time where you need to get a second pair of eyes, and it probably should have been sooner :-). However, when I see things such as this (him fixing his signature later), I'm much less sympathetic towards Nosdan (which wasn't much in the first place). Whether or not Nosdan is a SPA is irrelevant; Nosdan has edited disruptively on the AFD discussion, and has been uncivil. I recommend a block for this behavior. ~Oshwah~ 08:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm updating my initial statement. With the back-and-fourth battleground conduct that has occurred (even just here in ANI), and the edit warring performed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea - I'm now recommending a block for both of these users. ~Oshwah~ 10:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

i can certainly agree back and forth reverts were well over the top but as i have already stated i wont allow slanderous personal attacks without relevance stand. as for "fixing my signature later" im unsure of the context of your comment. originally i did forget to sign it, then flyer22 signed it "for me" (so much for their "shouldnt edit someone elses comments" stance) i did remove their signature on my comment and signed the comment correctly. it was simply an oversite that i corrected when it was made apparent to me see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Taharrush_gamea&diff=next&oldid=699919855 etc Nosdan (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan - The reason that I provided the diff and mentioned you "fixing your signature later" is because it shows that that you went back later to the uncivil message that you left, and fixed an error with it so that it would be "proper". That tells me that your message was intended to be uncivil because of the subtle and passive intentions and thinking that it implies. ~Oshwah~ 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah once again you have completely lost me with your comment (altho my f.lux is telling me its time to leave the computer behind for the night, so that may be why). you should also take into account that at the time of my initial comment as well as my fixing of my "error" of not signing my comment correctly i was also "fighting" with someone "hell bent" on publicly slandering and insulting me which was, at hte time, far more important than remembering to sign a comment correctly. apart from flyer22's constant barrage of insults and attacks aimed at me i am really not quite sure what your issue is?Nosdan (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Template:Unsigned is perfectly acceptable. And I didn't get to fix the template, since you signed your comment when I was in the process of fixing the template; there was a WP:Edit conflict. As for the rest of your commentary, that is addressed below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

this user has constantly attacked me (my account) and so i removed her personal attacks on me, as im sure you will see once you investigate. i wont stand for being publicly defamed. thanks Nosdan (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan, what you are doing is trying to control others' comments, to the point that we are not allowed to note any single-purpose accounts (by the very definition noted at WP:Single-purpose accounts), and to the point where I apparently am not allowed to note that you struck through my and E.M.Gregory's comments. You also engaged in another personal attack. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"what you are doing is trying to control others' comments" what you are doing is https://en.wikipedia.org/Psychological_projection . is it in fact you that is trying to control others comments, by trying to mark valid comments you do not agree with as invalid. Nosdan (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

so, in your mind everyone that disagrees with you is a sockpuppeting fake account? sounds kinda paranoid delusional to me. and making false accusations that i am a sockpuppeting fake account is not a personal attack on me and my character (even tho it is quite obviously a false claim)? or are you trying to claim that you are the only person that is allowed to make false, delusional and slanderous claims? because you have me really confused now. i can only follow logic and have had insufficient exposure to mentally ill to know how to deal with them. Nosdan (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan (last time WP:Pinging you to this thread because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), WP:Single-purpose accounts and WP:Sleeper accounts are not the same thing as WP:Sockpuppet accounts. And as stated above, noting that accounts are single-purpose accounts is standard practice in AfDs; I think you know that. I commented from experience, not due to paranoia. And whether or not I leave you out of the equation, I have the right to note that the other accounts are single-purpose accounts. And I certainly have the right to note that you struck through my comments. As for your personal attacks, I've had all sorts of personal attacks thrown at me, including "delusional" by editors who turned out to be sockpuppets after I correctly noted that they were. Feel free to keep throwing personal attacks my way, but they don't faze me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

which ever of the accusations you throw at me, you are (obviously) still completely wrong and i am more than happy to prove to any valid admin that this is indeed the case (obviously not to you personally). marking valid comments from valid people is simply a way for you to try and invalidate them as people as you have done in this case, "all these people are not real there for their opinions are invalid", and i find that highly offensive and i am highly offended by it. because of your obvious paranoia towards me, via your obviously incorrect and poorly thought out/researched slanderous claims i felt the need to give all your similar accusations a similar marking (tho not deleting them) to ensure other readers can see your pattern of harassment and offence you seem to enjoy. the only comments i removed was your further efforts to try and further personally attack me which was in no way related to the topic at hand. i hope you have begin to understand the error of your ways. Nosdan (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I still disagree with you. And there was no valid reason at all to remove this comment, which is me stating that those accounts are single-purpose accounts and noting that you struck through my comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"there was no valid reason at all to remove this comment" how about your continued personal attack on me, yet again calling into doubt my existence and validity? "Nothing is unsubstantiated with regard to calling the single-purpose accounts in this thread "single-purpose accounts." They are, by the very definition noted at WP:Single-purpose accounts." you are clearly either trolling or delusional if you think otherwise. in the past i have had 2 occasions where mentally deranged paranoid schizophrenics have called into doubt "my existence" where it has led to 3rd parties taking it as far as trying to find my home address and threatening physical violence on me, so i take your similar level of paranoid attack on me extremely seriously. Nosdan (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. And you have again wrongly removed my commentary from that page; that was not a WP:Personal attack whatsoever. It was me replying to an IP (defending myself against claims made by an IP) and once again noting that YOU ALTERED MY AND ANOTHER EDITOR'S COMMENTS; clearly, you don't want that truth noted. And you have no right to be controlling editors' comments like that at that page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

STOP. Both of you. Please. ~Oshwah~ 10:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"STOP. Both of you. Please." just so i can get this straight.. you are claiming that i should not have the right to remove obvious personal attacks on me that flyer22 CONTINUES to post on that same page?Nosdan (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

once again, you are completely wrong and at this point i think that rather than being mentally ill (paranoid or what ever you make out to be) you simply enjoy trolling me for kicks and attention? you continue to publicly attack and insult me when all i have done is try my best to stand up for myself and give credible "weight" to your poorly thought out slanderous personal attack on me.... if you make a comment i see that is attacking me that does not have relevance to wikipedia, by now you should be aware that i will simply remove that personal attack on myself before it has a chance to snowball further and become anything more personally dangerous towards myself and my personal well being. for someone that claims to have a high IQ you cant seem to grasp that personally attacking me is wrong and will result in me removing your vandalism? Nosdan (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect again. This is completely a WP:Talk violation. Your WP:Talk violation. Meanwhile, you get to state whatever you want at that page, and go on and on about how insane you think I am. Nothing I have stated about you rises to the level of personal attacks you have dished my way. Usually, the ones who act as defensive you are now do so because they know they have something to hide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

At that page, I will be restoring my reply to the IP, and noting that you altered my comments. And there isn't a thing you can do to stop me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

as long as you finally refrain from insulting me, yet again....... i see no reason i would even wish to remove it?Nosdan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - That response was absolutely not necessary. I understand how easy it can be to get frustrated or perhaps angry over disputes like this, but these kind of responses are not constructive, demonstrate battleground conduct, and will only add fuel to the fire. Please help me out here, and don't make any more responses like that. Let's solve the issue here. Please. ~Oshwah~ 10:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You will remove it because you considered this a personal attack. Our definitions of what a personal attack is are starkly different. You should also read WP:Vandalism. Misplaced Pages has a WP:Single-purpose account page; editors are allowed to call other editors single-purpose accounts, especially in AfDs, without being reprimanded for it. The worst I've called you is a single-purpose account and "the Nosdan account." Compare that to what you have called me and insinuated about me. Compare that to you removing my comments willy-nilly. I never stated that I have a high IQ, by the way (I don't lead with that); others have, and it was based on tests and interactions. And, yes, I somewhat noted that on my introduction page...since it's been a big part of my life. Whether that note is on my introduction page or not, Wikipedians have noticed that aspect of me. It's not something I go out of my way to hide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't see anything I stated above as completely unnecessary. And recommending a block for me for having the right to comment in the AfD and for putting up with the personal attacks and removal of my comments by Nosdan? Yeah, I obviously disagree. I'd been stopped reverting Nosdan at that AfD. I was replying to an IP; there was no personal attack. Nosdan came in and removed my comment and then made more personal attacks above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"there was no personal attack." as a "woman", i would have thought that being described as a "thing", nothing more than "an object" or a "piece of meat", being "objectified" would be something that you would have found offensive yourself? i find it HIGHLY hypocritical that you would think that referring to a man in the same manner is anything but similarly offensive? Nosdan (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your rationales are lost on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

unfortunately that has been obvious to me from the beginning.... Nosdan (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

pointing out that, in my previous experiences with delusional people such as yourself, who have no "facts" and simply "feelings" is not a personal attack, its stating the obvious. "My parents, and occasionally teachers I've had, bragged about my knowledge of many topics (IQ), and wanted me to use it to pursue career fields they had in mind" appears to be a claim that you have a high IQ? once again i would call that me quoting a "fact" not a personal attack. continually claiming that someone is not only unimportant, but more so not even real is a personal attack. but you are correct with your assertion that one of us is clearly wrong and mentally incapable of grasping reality. Nosdan (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet more personal attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing 5 reverts by User:Nosdan with three of them including striking out others comments and two of them removing someone else comments, That is enough to support a block of User:Nosdan for me. I am not seeing issues from Flyer22 rising to the same level. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your "opinion". in this instance im not sure how it holds any relevance. but thanks anyhow.Nosdan (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add a "Happy 15th" message but couldn't...

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

... because it has to be tweeted!

I don't "do" social media, and doubt if I am alone in this. So the happy, postitive message I wanted to send has no 'place' on Misplaced Pages because I am, in effect, discriminated against. Cheers! Shir-El too 09:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Emblem-question-yellow.svg

The 15th birthday site is not part of the English Misplaced Pages itself; what admin action are you asking for on this site? WaggersTALK 09:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this'll be good. Hold on, I'm making some popcorn. Update: I'm back! Feel free to proceed. ~Oshwah~ 09:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah, i have to say, i am more than a little disappointed that you would make such a troll'ish comment that is neither constructive or fair in any way. my parents always told me "if you have nothing constructive to say, you should say nothing at all". maybe it is advice well heeded? Nosdan (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the peculiar comment about "discrimination", isn't this more like maybe a ref desk question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan Edit warring and Crystal balling

Six weeks ago, I nominated All I Ask (Adele song) for deletion because it failed notability guidelines. The creator of the article, Greenock125, removed the notice and redirect it instead. That's fine. User:MaranoFan today reopened the article, and it still fails notability. So I re-instated the redirect. He has reverted me twice, and save me making a third revert, I'm reporting it here instead to avoid further warring and crossing the 3RR because that helps no one. I've explained in both of my revert summaries that it fails notability, but MuranoFan is rejected this. He or she is also use WP:CRYSTAL as an excuse for why the article should be open in this summary: "the song is #3 on Uk iTunes rn.Its about to xplode on the charts next week." MuranoFan has a recent history of edit warring and being disruptive for which he or she has been blocked multiple times. So, the main issues I am reporting him for are edit warring, ownership and crystal balling.  — Calvin999 11:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal interest in the article, "ownership" as is being accused. I am fine if someone redirects it. This guy said that I am "opposing the decision of others" when only he has expressed an opinion on this. I was not about to let someone preach edit warring and get way with it too. 'Nuff said. If I am punished, the reporter should also be certainly as well. --MaranoFan (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the opinion of others. I nominated it for deletion, and some else redirected it on their own accord because the essentially agreed that it failed, and still does fail by the way, notability. No one else in 6 weeks has touched the article or removed the redirect. You clearly do have a problem with it being redirected, you've reverted me twice for in-instating it. It's you who voluntarily removed the redirect and added text, not me. It wasn't me who started edit warring either, it was you.  — Calvin999 11:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ofcourse I'm fucking bothered. I spent fucking hours collecting sources and actually making a detailed article. It takes you 10 seconds to redirect with just a click. I was just asking for a deletion discussion, that's all. But you do really have a problem with me and that is shown by how you chose to come here instead of a 3RR noticeboard. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Then use your sandbox!!! If you remove a redirect and add sources you allegedly spent hours collecting (which I don't believe, the prose you added is not even one decent sized paragraph and it is not detailed in the slightest) and then the redirect gets re-instated because it still fails, then you don't really have a right to moan about it when you knowingly removed a redirect. A deletion discussion? Who said anything about now deleting the article which has been redirected for 6 weeks with no issue? That makes no sense. I'm reporting an incident which is more than just one issue, not your violation of three reverts because you haven't made three or more reverts. So that's makes no sense either. You keep incriminating yourself with nonsense each time you post here, do you realise that?  — Calvin999 12:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, Calvin police, let me teach you something a'ight? If you redirect an article, and someone expresses concern and changes the redirect. You go for an AFD. You are at fault here sry. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not when a redirect was already in place as a result of a deletion tag... I simply re-instated the redirect. You should have posted on my talk if you have an issue with it.  — Calvin999 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

NO, I shouldn't have to. That is the thing. Misplaced Pages prefers community discussion, not personal ones. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a discussion as the article talk would have been redirected... A discussion can take place anywhere. Seriously, I would stop now.  — Calvin999 12:20, 15

January 2016 (UTC)

I shouldnt have to "stop" anything because you say so. I will continue to make my defense. It is your fault for not nominating an article for AfD. Yes, Calvin, AFD. That's what we do for community feedback, not ANI. What do you intend to do here? I agree for an AfD, not for a straight up redirect. Don't think your opinion is superior to anyone else's in any way and stop this arrogance. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did back in December!! And it was redirected by another! There's nothing wrong with the article remaining as a redirect in case it becomes notable at a later date. I am reporting YOU for your actions about removing the redirect. And the place to do that is right here and this incident noticeboard, not AfD which is for deleting articles. Don't you understand how Misplaced Pages works?  — Calvin999 12:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I aint got as much time to waste as you clearly do. OK, we will see what others say. I am DONE answering you, and have made my point and others will see it. BYE.--MaranoFan (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing some major competence issues here for MaranoFan. First off, WP:BRD requires to communicate with Calvin about this issue. Instead, you've reinstated an article that was redirected, which I assume was made through deletion discussion. Second, Misplaced Pages is about discussion entirely. Your assumption of community discussion is wrong. All we do is discuss in order to reach consensus. Calvin999, do you mind linking to the deletion discussion please? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, Thank you Callmemirela, for responding. But, if you look deeper into this case, there was 0 discussion about redirecting. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Calvin999: The article has never been nominated for deletion. If that were the case, there would be an WP:AfD discussion on it, which there isn't and has never been. You WP:PRODed the article, but WP:PROD is neither binding nor an AfD. Stop edit-warring. Do not keep redirecting: If a redirect of an existing article is contested even once (as it has been here), your only recourse is to nominate it for deletion via WP:AfD. Since you haven't done that, the article needs to stand as an article. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, Softlavender, this is what I've been trying to tell him for hours. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hours again, huh?  — Calvin999 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• As per Softlavender, a WP:PROD nomination can be overturned by anyone and that's all I see as having happened here. Reverting the redirect back to an article counts as validly contesting the PROD, and the next step needs to be a nomination at WP:AFD - and until there is a "Delete" outcome at AFD then there is no consensus for the removal of the article (either by deletion or redirection). Please go do that, Calvin999, and stop the arguing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you will find that I did nominate it for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)&diff=693723913&oldid=693723689) but it was redirected by the editor who had added some text to it before anyone could comment on the discussion, presumably because that editor knew that it would be deleted in its lack of notability state, and took it upon himself to redirect (which I'm also happy with) in order to save it from deletion straight away. People are missing the bigger picture here: it's fails notability, and MuranoFan using crystal to justify why it should stay is just wrong. So what, it's 3 on UK iTunes. That only means one more chart will be added to the two it has already charted on. That doesn't create notability in itself. The reason why I am posted here is because of MuranoFan's attitude, starting an edit war and using a crystal ball.  — Calvin999 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It has already been stated here that PROD (which you did) and AFD (which you did not do) are not the same thing. For this to be deleted, an AFD nomination would need to be started, and a clear consensus gotten there for deletion (no consensus→no change). If you genuinely believe it should be deleted then argue for that in the correct venue (which, one more time, is AFD). GRAPPLE 14:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, MuranoFan just violated the 3RR and performed his third revert in less than three and a half hours just now: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)&curid=48324800&action=history.  — Calvin999 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR entails going beyond three, not reaching it. GRAPPLE 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well three years ago I was blocked for doing only three, and I've seen many others blocked for only three, so there needs to be some continuity with that. At the very least, a formal warning should be given to the editor because 3RR doesn't mean you have to use three and make the history unstable.  — Calvin999 14:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Calvin999, s/he's only made two reverts total: , . Violating 3RR means making four reverts in 24 hours. Something is really not computing for you today: You fail to understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD or WP:3RR. I suggest you withdraw this ANI filing before you waste any more of our time, and before it boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing as Softlavender. Calvin999, you have a complete misunderstanding of these processes. PROD does not involve a discussion. User:Greenock125 did not have to redirect to "save" it from deletion. All he had to do was remove the PROD. He may have decided to redirect it until he or another editor could find further sources, which is indeed what MaranoFan did. So stop second-guessing the motives of others. I also note that you have not discussed any of your notability concerns at Talk:All I Ask (Adele song). Nor have you discussed them with MaranoFan or Greenock125. Instead you came straight to ANI. Enough already. Open Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/All I Ask (Adele song) (instructions here) and stop wasting everyone's time. Or don't open it and stop wasting everyone's time. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Softlavender, he/she has made three reverts total: One, Two and Three. The third was a 'Nope, that's not allowed, we don't do that' kind of revert, to which the editor who made the edit asked Murano fan why it's not allowed, to which MuranoFan contradicted himself and said to the effect of 'well it is allowed but we don't really do it anymore'. Yet I am being told to read up on rules? I recommend that admins start to only block if four reverts are made, because I know many editors who have been blocked for making three reverts with the rationale of just because the limit is three, doesn't mean you have to implement and use the limit, as that then brings other aspects such as edit warring, ownership and instability into play. I don't need to you to be uncivil to me either. I won't be checking back here, if you want to reply then use my talk page.  — Calvin999 15:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This simple and warranted and uncontroversial removal of a couple of deprecated wikilinks is not a revert in the context of edit-warring. I don't know how or why you are getting your wires crossed here, but it's beginning to be a case of WP:IDHT and an insistence on making MaranoFan (and everyone else on this thread, including admins) wrong and yourself right by whatever means possible. I'm asking you the last time, before I or someone else urges a WP:BOOMERANG sanction on you: Please drop this ANI thread and do something else on Misplaced Pages. I'm hoping your "I won't be checking back here, ..." means you are willing to drop this. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~ 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~ 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Misplaced Pages:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Campaigning for Hung Tzu-yung

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

Could an admin please speedy delete and salt this article for now? The article was deleted after clear consensus in 2 AfD discussions, and has been re-created by the same editor just in-time one day before the elections. To be clear, I have nothing at all against the party or their candidate, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be misused for campaigning. Although this request is not primarily about the editor, I have notified the article creator Jackac (talk · contribs) of this post. GermanJoe (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Rigel Squadron 2 violating WP:NFCC#9

User:Rigel Squadron 2 continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:Rigel Squadron 2 despite warnings at User talk:Rigel Squadron 2#January 2016. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor's user page looks like a bit of a WP:FAKEARTICLE as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User Ronalditos58815738 consistently introduces errors

User:Ronalditos58815738 (contributions) is consistenly changing small facts about numbers on Mexican stadions. I checked them on three or four articles, and the given sources, and the numbers of the user seem incorrect or at least from an unknown source. The sources, e.g. at Estadio_Azteca (diff) do not agree with the user's edits. I would suggest that his edits need all to be verified or reverted. I put the notification on the user's talk page. I would go through it myself, but don't have the time right now. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages to promote a racist marketing strategy

User:Rebecca1990 is an SPA who substantive edits almost exclusively center on pornography. Their edits show a substantial and detailed knowledge of the field, familiarity with a fairly wide range of detailed sources, and access to material that is not indexed or directly available through standard online search techniques. Several users have independently questioned whether the account is operated by a paid/promotional editor, and its editing patterns may indicate more than one person uses the account. "Rebecca" periodically casts unsupported aspersions on other editors, and makes aqccusations of dishonesty without evidence. In at least one deletion discussion, her accusations of racism against other editors were characterized by uninvolved admins as "appalling" bad faith,], but no action was taken at that time.

"Rebecca" has recently contested the removal of clearly inaccurate factual statements concerning "interracial" sex from multiple BLPs, and edit wars to retain the inaccurate content. They has gone so far as to attempt to write their preferred definition into the article on Ethnic pornography, using sources which characterize her preferred definition as dishonest and racist.(also see As those sources (and others) note, this attempt to redefine "interracial" sex as exclusively heterosexual sex between a black male and a white female is a departure from popular and scholarly consensus, is factually inaccurate, and is really no more than a marketing strategy intended to attract consumers in a misogynistic, racist market niche. The attempt to commandeer Misplaced Pages articles to support this marketing strategy is atrocious and beyond all reasonable doubt grossly inappropriate.

There is no question that the term "interracial" has historically carried a broader meaning; the famous Star Trek "interracial kiss" involved white male William Shatner and black female Nichelle Nichols; the interracial marriage sustained by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia involved a white male husband and black female wife. Nor is there any question that, even in the context of pornography, the term was limited to heterosexual black male-white female sex: The Internet Adult Film Database lists many, many scenes between black female and white male performers as "interracial" ("IR"). See, for example its entries for Anna Amore, Ebony Ayes, Cherokee D'Ass, Kim Eternity, Carmen Hayes,Heather Hunter, Janet Jacme, Angel Kelly, Lola Lane, Purple Passion, Jeannie Pepper, Domonique Simone, Kelly Starr, Desiree West.

Nor is there any question that Rebecca1990's insistence on the LGBT-phobic exclusion of non-heterosexual sex from the definition of "interracial" is unfounded. For example, the phrase "interracial lesbian" scores more than one million Google hits (many current references in the context of commercial pornography); and the IAFD lists many, many performers with "Lez Only IR" credits (check the prior list for examples), as well as titles like "Interracial Lesbian Nation" (at least two volumes), "Interracial Lesbian Ass Worship" (at least six volumes), "Bareback Interracial" (male-male), and "Interracial Lip Smacking Lesbians".

For a knowledgeable user to insist on such plainly counterfactual content is inexcusable. There's no apparent way to explain this that doesn't involve promotional purposes. Some level of editing limits/sanction is called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that I do indeed have "substantial and detailed knowledge" on pornography, which is exactly why I am very qualified to edit articles on the topic. Your accusations of me being a publicist and there being more than one person using my account are both false. In reality, I'm personally opposed to the way the porn industry treats interracial scenes, but I don't let that influence how I edit articles because I do it from a WP:Neutral point of view. The examples you provided of black women/white men are IAFD saying they performed interracial as a sex act, not that they performed in the interracial genre, there is a difference. Some lesbian and gay porn films have the word "interracial" in the title, so what? That doesn't mean anything. The title of a film is unrelated to the genre they are categorized in. NSFW warning: Brazzers has an interracial category consisting entirely of scenes that feature black males. Here's a scene between a white woman and a black woman. Look at "Niche & Categories". "Interracial" is not on there. Here's a scene between a white woman, a black woman, and an Asian woman. Look at "Niche & Categories". "Interracial" is not on there. There are reliable sources that state when Dani Daniels, Karen Summer, and Kendra Lust made their debuts in the interracial pornography genre. The interracial pornography genre is black male/white female, as several reliable mainstream sources have reported. This AVN article stating that Daniels was "making her first-ever foray into the interracial genre" is factually accurate because the interracial genre is black male/white female and this was the first time Daniels had a black male co-star in a scene. What would actually be inaccurate is saying "Daniels had interracial sex on-screen for the first in the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper, but that's not what the article said. It said "Daniels did her first interracial sex scenes for the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper" with a link to the article on the genre. If you want a compromise, "Daniels made her debut in the interracial pornography genre with the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper" is perhaps less confusing. But you shouldn't remove the info from articles altogether because it is a major event in the careers of porn stars. Why do you think AVN and XBIZ report it so often? Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That Brazzers cite demonstrates the vacuousness of your argument. Misplaced Pages is not bound to accept any business's marketing codewords in writing articles. And most of their marketing categories (they have scores if not hundreds) are not "genres" and are often utterly ridiculous. Albanian porn? Australian porn? Ballerina porn (which has no discernible connection to content involving ballerinas)? Booty Shorts porn? Five different "Doggystyle" porn genres? French Canadian porn? Huggy Bear porn? Jogging Suit porn? (Really, look here ) Parking Lot porn? St. Patrick's Day porn? Sun Hat porn? Thanksgiving porn? Why should we take this stuff seriously?

Am I seriously going to have to refute the above by linking to various porn sites interracial categories? I am not sure ANI is ready for xhamster... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is all OR. Cite some secondary sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources and quotes from them stating that the interracial pornography genre/category is only applied to scenes featuring black men can be found here. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, WordPress blog, and that's before we get to Vocativ. The Misplaced Pages article on that site reads like a cross between a press release and a software sales brochure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting wikipedia contributor, occuspriest.

Since I am only an observer, and I am not an experienced wikipedia user, I want to report wikipedia user/contributor, OCCUSpriest, who made changes to wikipedia page, Craig J. N. de Paulo, that were clearly malicious and slanderous, in direct violation of the wikipedia policies concerning biographies of living persons. I suspect that this person is what seems to be called "sock puppeting." Anyway, this is clearly a personal attack to this page about the Archbishop of the Old Catholic Church in the United States of which I am a member. Thank you! 2601:45:8001:A70F:4C6B:623E:4102:5B32 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors warned, article semi-ed minus the BLP violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector and User:ScrapIronIV

These users have both reinstated unreferenced original research in Melissa Duck. Please block BOTH of them temporarily. 134.154.39.221 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)