Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 12 January 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

I believe a requested move (RM) discussion for John VI of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that was still active was prematurely closed. The discussion was still active, and there were multiple replies going on the same day when an administrator (User:The ed17) abruptly closed and moved the page. I appealed to the closer for reversal, but to no avail (unfortunately, I was not very polite in the heat of that shock, but others should not have to pay for my thoughtlessness).

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move.

• Talk page shows the continued how active the disussion still is Talk:João VI of Portugal
• Talk page of the closer User talk:The ed17#João VI, with reactions to the closing.

This page has been subjected to the same requested move before (including earlier this year earlier RM), and the decision consistently has been to leave the page at the same stable, long-standing title. Although this renewed RM had fewer participatants, discussion still proceeded and strong opposition was expressed. But an administrator stepped in, interpreted it as "consensus", closed it and moved it, while active discussion was still going on (there were many replies on that same day).

Immediate disatisfaction with the change is evident on the talk page, and the discussion is obviously still active. You might also notice that this name change implicates other similarly-titled pages (John I, John II, John III, etc.), and the controversial move immediately resulted in a brief spate of move-warring across other pages. Clearly, this needs more discussion. The move was premature and should be reversed back to the stable, long-standing title it had before the move and discussion re-opened.

Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see, the requested move was opened 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC). Requested moves can be closed any time after full listing period (also seven days). Thus the close of this requested move wasn't premature. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was Christmas lull. Discussion was very active again. There were seventeen (!) posts on the topic the very day it was closed. Indeed, I found abruptly closed while still in the course of composing a reply. Walrasiad (talk)

There was little chance of the consensus changing when only people who had already participated were arguing, in my view. There was no later move-warring, just typical WP:BRD. My view is that an RfC needs to be raised to decide what name the articles should be under. Ed  02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're saying. People were in active discussion. If you admit consensus wasn't changing, then the page should have not been moved but left in its current state. I hate to bring this up here, but it has also been brought to my attention that you recently sought out the assistance of one of the more active participants in this debate on an unrelated matter (collaborating on each other's Featured Articles). While I am certain your closure was not elicited nor done as a favor, I can't help but wonder if your judgment of "consensus" was not inadvertently affected by your close familiarity with one of the more vocal editors for the move. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I am sure you endeavored to be fair, but we are all human and judgment is imperfect. It would put my mind at rest if another less-involved administrator at least looked at this RM closure with a fresh impartial set of eyes, and decided whether or not "consensus to move" had been reached and the closure and move warranted. I am all for opening RfC to the wider community and resolving this matter, but I think it fair that the page be first restored to prior state, so that people coming to comment are clearly aware what the long-standing, stable status of the article has been, and where the burden of proof lies. Walrasiad (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was compromised, I wouldn't have closed it. I remain firmly convinced that my assessment of the consensus was correct. I'm going to back away, let this ANI run its course (read: let neutral editors weigh in), and then let's all open an RfC. Ed  04:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Misplaced Pages is for english readers. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All the supporters of this diastrous name change should be investigated for canvassing and/or other non-ethical behavior. Looks pretty much like a group action to pollute the language intentionally. Very destructive consensus in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

C'est la vie. Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think João is more appropriate, since that seems to be favoured by sources (both anglophone and lusophone). I would remind GoodDay that although this is the "English Misplaced Pages", it covers foreign subjects too. Including, in this case, a Portuguese monarch. One of the perils of having articles on Portuguese people is that we may sometimes have to use Portuguese names; accuracy is pretty important in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is xenophobia allowed on Misplaced Pages? Some of the remarks here and at João VI of Portugal's talk page are way out of line. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophobia? Once again with the grotesque low personal attacks? No one's made nationality an issue except you Lecen. Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When will we 'english only' speakers, get our language Misplaced Pages back? Heck help us, if a movement begins, to change the Japanese monarch articles to Japanese. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good close, good move. The unhappy parties seem intent on misnaming anything "foreign". Bad businesses. Alarbus (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As the closer suggested, the obvious course is a rfc on the use of the name. RMs have limited participation, and are subject to distortion by a small number of people who feel the same way on something. In this case, the issue is broad enough that others might be interested. The cure for limited attention is wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you're not in any way involved, how about drafting an RfC on this and getting a goodly number of uninvolved in on this? I'm not much involved, but I see others (in this thread) who involve themselves in all sorts of moves involving diacritics and "foreign" names. It's not healthy for the project. If not you, someone... Alarbus (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But this needs to be moved back to the long-standing stable page before an RfC run, so that outside commentators are clear what the status quo was and where the burden of proof lies. I have participated in many RMs, and never have I seen "consensus" so misinterpreted by a closing administrator as happened here. Now, even if this closing admin honestly believed at the time there was consensus, I think it is pretty clear now that there isn't consensus. So I'd like to remind administrators to apply the policy WP: Consensus states: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Walrasiad (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I do still believe that there was consensus. You need to stop criticizing my close, which was right numbers-wise (6 to 3) and arguments-wise (my judgement), and let outside people here comment (which they may not do, thanks to the vitriol expressed by you and others). Either way, soon after we need to move to an RfC. Ed  19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was premature or ill-advised or something. It should take more than a 6-3 to declare a new consensus for a long-standing title that was last thoroughly discuss just a year ago and had a 9–9 split over the issue. Especially since there's a big contentious broad principle at stake here. Do a centralized RfC on it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you might have missed the point of what is truly being discussed here. A move was requested based on what is the name mostly used by English speaking historians. The name is João VI. We have 53,800 results for João and 40,800 results for John. Ed17 closed the discussion because here were no longer replies except for three users who against the move who kept debating by thsemves. So far, so good. What some may have not noticed are the comments by three users with a high dosage of xenophobia., , and ], to name a few. This is the kind of behavior that should not be allowed on Misplaced Pages. --Lecen (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, as proven clearly in the talk page, your numbers are misleading. And I am getting increasingly tired and annoyed of your bald accusations and insinuations about the motives of people about whom you known nothing about. You and only you have made nationality an issue. You have repeatedly, not only in this debate, but also in the user talk pages, related to your failed Featured Article candididacies when people disagreed with you. Your paranoia is misconstrued. At some point, you should realize that just because someone doesn't agree with your view, or doesn't thnk Portuguese spellings should be forced upon English wikipedia, they aren't necessarily xenophobes, and to accuse them of that is disgusting and dishonest. Walrasiad (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to being slandered here as xenophobic. Anyone who knows me or even has looked at my WP user page would find such personal attacks om me ridiculous. I find them extremely offensive. STOP THAT MUD-SLINGING! And stick to the subject! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP policy, as I understand it, that frequency of use should be more important than common sense in naming articles, as long as frequency imbalance is not overwhelming, which is not the case here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be "John VI of Portugal", followed by, (João VI de Portugal). Which follows the pattern found on John II of France and Henry IV of France. Maybe this should be the pattern for all royalty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so, but that is to be addressed in an RfC, not here. The only issue in this ANI is whether there was consensus for the move or not. And if not, then it should be corrected as per "no consensus" policy in WP:CONSENSUS and the page moved back to the long-standing stable name. The RfC, and all the comments about names, can follow from there. Walrasiad (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. See WP:COMMONNAME and the closely related point three at WP:SOVEREIGN. In any case, the question here, as I understand it, is if I judged consensus correctly at the RM linked about. Ed  20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature looking at it objectively and carefully, reading it all, taking into account the holidays and also the apparent identities of some of the "voters", plus WP common sense policies on everything, including WP:USEENGLISH. That's not to say I want to criticize Ed, who I'm sure acted in good faith (sadly, more than I can say about some of the others involved). SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue) are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say muito bem dito in beautiful Portuguese. Thanks SandyGeorgia! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

three edit-conflicts, getting ridiculous! :Wait, what? I don't really have a position on the FA director issue right now. That's why I want an RfC. Have I unintentionally expressed one? Afaik, Alarbus and Lecen haven't contacted each other before a few days ago. It may be that they share several philosophies about Misplaced Pages and naturally gelled. I thought that the argument that there were more sources calling him Joao was proven, and there were more people opining with stronger arguments in support than those opposed. That's why I closed it as "move." Ed  20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you Ed-- an editor very legitimately came here looking for help, where for all the world I can't see where he's not plainly right, yet he's having to battle a Lecen-Alarbus coordination that developed a few days ago over another issue, and no admins will just take this on and solve it, so what should be clear right here and now gets drug to RFC, wasting a lot of time. This is why ANI doesn't work and admins are held in little regard. Please explain why this is rocket science, and please explain why admins can't see that Alarbus has all the hallmarks of a returning editor with an agenda, who is supporting Lecen here because of other issues? Gosh, is anything above f'ing c's just too hard for admins to deal with? What about the fellow who came here with a legitimate issue who is getting ignored? I've had to call out canvassing in this suite in the past-- is anyone even looking into that? And Serge, if you have diffs, post them here-- you have to make it very easy here on ANI, because not all of them will look beyond obvious vulgarities for which they can issue an easy block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, () leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style, leading him to sour grapes at FAC, leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, obliquely you are because I'm the one who closed the RM. ;-) I've been waiting for a neutral admin or editor to look at the discussion and assess my close (aka the original issue raised in post #1), but I think the vitriol here has stopped people from entering the discussion. Anyway. I have to run to work now. Ed  21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, you can make a wrong close without necessarily being an incompetent admin or complicit ... I'm alerting you to the problem, but my issue is with other admins who do nothing unless someone curses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha – my bad. Ed  21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly hard to make a good close when there are disruptive behaviors, canvassing, and the like going on, so yea ... where are the other admins to help out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rfc, seems the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on what or whom? Which part of the various Misplaced Pages pages on naming and foreign languages is unclear? Please explain why the naming aspect isn't fairly clear cut and well spelled out in the pages linked above-- I may be truly dense. Unless you're suggesting an editor RFC for disruption ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, that we should use english. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark; Pedro V of Portugal; Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece (to name a few), should be Frederick, Crown Prince of Denmark; Peter V of Portugal; Paul, Crown Prince of Greece. The problem is a few editors who seem to be pushing their 'mother-tongue' on these article titles. What kinda Rfc is pushed, matters not to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Though we are drifting more and more off topic, I do not agree re: bios of living people after 1900. By about then, everyone had legal names with legal spellings, so Frederik should remain Frederik, Carl XVI Gustaf should remain Carl Gustaf etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...that's not specifically within WP:SOVEREIGN. The names have to be the most-used in English literature. The issue here is that certain English transliterations may not actually be predominant for some names, but not all, so the RfC will decide what names they should all go under. Or at least that's how I'm envisioning it. Ed  06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the exchange at User talk:The ed17#Appeal to resolve RM and SergeWoodzing I wish to point out to you that when closing a WP:RM debate it is not a question of counting "votes" it is a question of reading the opinions expressed and seeing how they match the WP:AT policy and the naming convention guidelines.

It seems to me that the debate was closed before these issues had been properly aired, and many of the opinions expressed did not examine the evidence and present it using the policy and guidelines to help them come to an informed decision. The sort of questions that should have been asked are outlined in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.

After skimming the debate I do not see any analysis presented of the usage in reliable sources in the article. I do not see a survey of what other general references use and the Google search seems to be flawed.

It would have helped every one come to a more informed decision if a Google search had been done on English language books published in the last 25 years or so. If that had been done then the results seem to indicate that "João VI" or "Joao VI" is about twice as common than "John VI". But I have not looked at the quality of the sources and that would take time to do (an ANI is not the forum for it). Also there has been no discussion about whether "João VI" or "Joao VI" is more common in English language sources.

I think the RM ought not to have been closed as a move because the evidence had not been presented in such a way that an informed decision could have been reached by the closing administrator, on the evidence presented during the RM debate, and I do not see a summary of the informed reasons for the move presented by the closing administrator, which if given could have gone a long way to defusing this row.

As an administrator who has closed debates before that are contentious :-o I know what a thankless task it often is. I suggest that in this case that unless on consideration Ed decides to reopen this debate, the customary period of six months is allowed to pass before the debate is resumed with a new WP:RM. I particularly do not support an RfC over this issue (it is forum shopping) and often RfCs get even less support than RMs and RMs have an advantage over RfCs because they tend to attracted editors who are familiar with the WP:AT policy and its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to PBS on admin "The ed17"

Thank you for your input. I respectfully request that a different admin be put in charge of this decision, as I don't believe the closing administrator User:The ed17 is competent to make this decision.

Support the respectful request and admire the excellent and comprehensive field work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was holding this part of my argument back, to give Ed time to make the right decision. But User:Lecen has just now tried to get me frivolously blocked a second time, this time on 3RR, when I resisted Lecen's attempt a few minutes ago to introduce an automatic archiving bot to remove the older (but relevant) discussions on the John VI talk page before this ANI was resolved. As a result, I am not sure if I'll be blocked or not, and might not be around to see Ed's reply and the progress of this ANI before laying out this case.

It is not a pleasant case to make, and I wish I wouldn't have to, but Ed's failure to rectify his error, and Lecen's increasingly hostile shenanigans to induce my silence, leave me little option but to present the case fully now. I have tip-toed around it thus far. But I feel that so long as the situation continues in the present state, there will be more collateral damage, and resolution must be quickened.

Let me state it openly: I am not satisfied that User:The ed17 acted ethically or in a manner befitting of an admin on this matter. I believe ed17's judgment and role in this closure was elicited at the request of one of the more vocal participants, specifically User: Lecen, who I believe also canvassed other participants, to undertake the move.

This charge is based on the following factors:

• Ed and Lecen are close collaborators on Featured Article candidacies (FAC), and have been for over a year, Ed and Lecen are extremely friendly, intimate collaboraters, and in e-mail contact with each other, as a cursory glance at their talk pages show, e.g. just from the past year (2011), from Ed's talk page:

*Dec 10 (Lecen canvassing Ed for Requested Move vote (on a different page). Note revelation of e-mail contact between them over this.)

• Jan 11

* Feb (FAC coop)

• Mar (note: here Ed moves a page at Lecen's request, without RM),
• Apr (FAC coop)
• Apr 2 (on a problem with an FA commentator)
• Jun 1, (FAC coop),
• Jun 2 (what looks suspiciously like a plan to manipulate an RfC to help Lecen evade a block, and a curious comment about the "arbitrariness" of admins),
• Sep (FAc again)
• Sep (recommending Lecen to author op-ed for the Bugle)
• Oct
• Nov (FAC coop)

* Dec (FAC review coop)

* Dec (greetings & gratitude)

• Side note: Lecen's contributions to Ed's FAC on Talk:South American dreadnought race

and from Lecen's talk page (from 2011)

* Jan 11 (Lecen warned about Canvassing for FAC by another party)

* Jan (Lecen's edit-warring quarrel with Cpripper over John VI/Joao VI in Empire of Brazil page)

* Jan (CPripper warns Lecen of 3RR in attempting to impose Joao VI over John VI in Brazil article. Lecen follows it up with counter-threats on Crpipper's page)

* Jan (Lecen & Paulista01 frustration over failure of RM for Joao VI/John VI, blame nationality of admin, plan re-run)

* Jan (Uxbona summarizes wiki policy on monarch names, rel. John VI)

* User talk:Lecen/Archive 7#Luso-Brazilian History (Ed expresses interest in joining Lecen's Luso-Brasilian history wikigroup; note participation of Asyntax, Paulista01, in this (who also participated in this RM). Note also Lecen's revelation of his frustration to Ed of first RM ofJoao/John VI in Jan 11, part of the quarrel of which can be read just above.)

* Apr (Ed urging Lecen not to leave, Ed characterized as a "good and loyal person")

* Dec 11 (FAC coop)

* Jan (post on Ed's FAC, Ed expresses regret at Lecen's departure, urges alternative projects, future collaboration - three days before RM fiasco).

finally from User:Lumastan (Chritiano Thomas) page, an indication (in the Portuguese language) of the connection between the John VI name and Lecen's departure this past December 2011:

* translation: explaining his departure, Lecen says "I had interest in writing other articles on Portuguese history but lack of support has destimulated me", referring to FA reviewers being "sometimes some real arrogant ****" who frustrated him. He then goes on to point out that "I wanted to improve the D. Joao VI article, but I hate the name "John VI' and the editors here on Misplaced Pages love to "americanize (or more precisely "anglicize") the name of the their monarchs....I tried to change the name, but I did not receive the proper support".

It has given me no pleasure to trawl through talk pages collecting this, and even less pleasure posting it here. The point of airing all this laundry is:

• 1. to demonstate a pattern of intimacy and cooperation between Lecen and the Ed for at least a year. Most of it is legitimate and fair, but some of it is close enough to suggest a serious compromise of impartiality.
• 2. This collection also demonstrates that it is impossible that Ed was not aware of Lecen's the frustrations and acrimony over John/Joao VI.
• 3 It also notes Ed's awareness of Lecen's threats to depart as a result of his frustrations with critical editors and lack of new projects, a departure which might compromise the FA candidacy of Ed's article on the dreadnaught race, all of which suggests Ed might have had a disposition to "do something about it".

On the basis of this, I believe it highly unlikely that Ed's appearance at the RM was a coincidence of patrolling RM page, and very probable that it was elicited by Lecen, or volunteered as a favor by Ed to Lecen to forestall his threatened departure.

In furtherance of this hypothesis:

• Lecen's other suspectedly canvassed participant (User:Alarbus) was also working closely with Lecen in FA issues, came in only minutes before Ed also came in and closed the RM. I believe this suggests was a timed response to a Lecen elicitation.

• As PBS noticed above, Ed did not satisfactorily explain his rationale for closure, neither at the time nor in the follow up discussions. In his responses to my protestations and appeals, Ed has made no reference to any particular point or argument made, but has simply spoken in generalities, suggesting low familiarity with the points in the debate. I believed this is indicative that he did not actually take the RM seriously, or take any factors other than his friendship to Lecen into consideration in his decision. I suspect he simply closed and moved it without bothering to read it, at the request or as a favor to Lecen.

• I also find Ed's citation above of "only three opponents" of the move in this ANI, which is false, to be suspicious, as it simply reiterates the situation as interpreted by Lecen, and stated by him in other venues. (e.g. ), suggesting he never took a careful look.

• Although I recognize I protested a little strongly immediately after the shock, Ed did not and has still not provided satisfactory justification, and his consistent reply to my concerns and appeals has been to brush me off and tell me to "go start an RfC". At one point, he even referred to my concerns as "lame" with a mocking link WP:Lame .

• that upon closure, Ed immediately pushed his current FA candidacy of his FA candidacy article on the Dreadnought Race in the reply to the protests over the closure , which I believe is a significant hint of him eliciting grateful participants to reward him with a favorable review of his FAC. Lecen has duly done so today. This seems like tit-for-tat payola.

• Ed's failure to recuse himself from acting as an admin in a debate in which a close and intimate collaborator and confessed friend was engaged in, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is further proof he did not approach this matter impartiality or ethically.

I therefore submit that The Ed acted partially, unethically and corruptedly in this matter, in a manner inconsistent and unbefitting of an admin, with the conscious knowledge and intent of violating WP policy, that he was not fit at the time to make an impartial judgment about the RM of this article, and he is not fit to make any further judgment relating to it. I request that another admin take over the matter, and reverse the close & move decision and restore the page to its long-standing, stable situation, as per WP:Consensus policy.

While I am sure some will take exception to these charges, on the basis that the evidence is purely circumstantial (I am not in the possession of any actual e-mails between Lecen & the Ed), I believe it is at least sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Ed appeared to act with impropriety in this matter, and that therefore the decision should not depend on him.

I regret having to air such accusations in this forum, over what I am certain was only a momentary slip. I have previously appealed directly to Ed's good sense, duty and responsibility, to put an end to this matter promptly. But his refusal to countenance it has left me little option.

At this point, I have no interest in petitioning for Ed's admin privileges to be revoked, or for any ethical investigations or sanctions, or for any further investigations of canvassing, but simply want this matter resolved promptly, and this entire thing placed behind us.

I would, however, like to direct admin's attentions to User:Lecen's recent aggressive personal attacks & mud-slinging accusations of xenophobia (e.g. , ), attempts to archive the talk page away ( , ), and frivolous attempts to get administrators to block me (ANI, 3RR) as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior designed to derail this ANI and my continued participation in it. I believe the swifter this matter is resolved, the quicker those disruptive shenanigans will cease.

Thank you for your attention. And I sincerely regret things got to this stage. Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)T

It's rather late so I haven't read everything above, but will tomorrow at some point. As ridiculous as it seems, the only reason I drifted across the article was the computer game Victoria 2. I was playing a campaign as Portugal (still am, actually, though I'm not doing very well) and decided to look into the actual Portuguese history during that period.

By the number of links above, I apparently have many more interactions with Lecen than I previously thought. From the links I reviewed, though, many seem were incidental (e.g. the Bugle op-ed was purely because Lecen was the only editor I specifically knew was from Brazil, or I reviewed a FAC and he thanked me for it). I'm not sure what the RM -> FAC implication is about, as I've been working for months to get the article to a FAC standard, and afaik Lecen has only translated a few Portuguese-language sources for me (hence my sadness at his intended retirement, as I plan to write more on Brazilian warships). The "lame" comment was in direct reply to "People are insane (as a species;)"; I've never attacked someone in my time here and certainly wouldn't start now. As for the email so prominently linked at the top, I have no recollection of it, nor is it in my email archive. As far as I can remember, our interactions have mainly been limited to being interested in roughly the same area and era of history, along with occasional requests for advice. Should I have recused for having previous interactions with one editor in the discussion? If so, then I apologize and invite a neutral admin to review (and correct, if necessary!) my close. Ed  09:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read through most of the rest, and I'm a little taken aback. Nearly all of the links from Lecen's talk page do not involve me. As for the hypotheses above,

1. There has been some cooperation, mainly in the area of Brazilian history, where we are both active. Beyond that, not so much.
2. Not sure how I can defend against this, but I had not looked at the naming disputes beforehand. I don't think I actually clicked the link given in Lecen's archive 7, which is backed up by my rather bland answer.
3. I take the insinuation that I closed the RM to get support at FAC absolutely reprehensible, as attempts to 'game' FAC in this manner are taken very seriously over there. I did not and would never do anything specifically to gain support at a FAC of mine. Ed  22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When you said "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names" you were not joking. I will not even waste my time discussing The ed17's ethics. He is a well known and respected editor here. About the other editors mentioned here (Paulista, Cristiano Tomás, Astynax): like myself, all of them are well known contributors of Brazilian/Portuguese articles. About the move now: nothing of new was occurring on the discussion, except for Walrasiad and two other editors who were opposed the move who kept arguing against it. None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II. See the discussion on the talk page: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture (I'm not kidding, go see it for yourself). Plus: Walrasiad talks as I was the mastermind behind the entire discussion. I had a marginal role on the discussion (see João VI's talk page history log). I made a few comments here, at the ANI, arguing over his inappropriate behavior (insulting the administrator, foreign culture prejudice, etc...). P.S.: I took the liberty to notify the other editors accused by Walrasiad since he didn't do that. --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not attribute partisan motives to me -- I wish to make it clear that I have not (and would not) act in concert with Lecen or any other person. I form my own views and am not afraid to express them. However, I am commenting here because Lecen has asked me to. I have a doctorate in economic history and regularly monitor EM, CFD, and certain AFDs. I would express a lot of respect for PBS (which I have come across in WP), who provided me with a lot of help over some edit-warring in the days when WP was full of unreliable information and citing sources was quite usual. That issue was ultimately resolved in my favour, after I had published something elsewhere - in aplace where it could be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remember that this entire conflict is being caused by three editors: Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing. They are the three editors who opposed the move and are creating a false feeling of "general opposition" to ed17's closure. They are few, indeed, but they can yell very loud. GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are two editors well known for their staunch oppotion to anything they regard as "too foreign". None of them have ever made any contribution to João VI of Portugal or have shown any interest on the King's life. Do not mistake three editors' unreasonable complains with a general unrest. --Lecen (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There's that word again "Foreign". Why are you making this an nationalistic/ethnic thing? It's an linguistic topic we're dealing with here. It's not a Canadian -vs- Portuguese argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A sole purpose account to vote. This is what I call fairness. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw that accusation, unless you have evidence. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? But you don't find odd the existence of this account? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am none of these editors; I find the suggestion that I created an account in August in order to meddle in this discussion, which did not exist then, too weird to be seriously insulting. It was suggested that my comments would get more respect if they were signed, from those who had trouble remembering "not to bite the newbies." (I seem to have begun with an English ship.) This does not seem to be working out; I may return to anonymity. Subnumine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As Subnumine points out, the account existed long before this debate came up. There's nothing to link it to the other editors. If you do not have enough evidence to support an investigation, don't make the accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize for taking a long time to answer. Here is what I think: This discussion has become passionate, it can’t get anywhere. The reality is that regulation is a little confusing, we are supposed to give priority to English names, I agree, but it also states that we have to take into consideration the most used name in modern sources. Using the last one I based my decision, I supported the use of João VI instead of John VI because most modern historians use João VI. Among these is British/Canadian historian Roderick J. Barman, one of the best in his field. I would also like to note that most if not all of the English speaking historians used as sources in Brazilian/Portuguese articles use João VI, that being said, I would rather have both names on top. I believe Lecen tried to do this in the past but one editor complained, he made all hell break lose because of an English translation of a royal name, you can’t please everybody. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it. Walrasiad (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this now: "GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are two editors well known for their staunch oppotion to anything they regard as "too foreign"." Accusations of this kind are really disgusting. Rarely have I ever seen such a low level of despicable garbage in a WP discussion. I think Lecen should be severely censured for this kind of intentional, manipulative, personal insults that have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of reality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User Blospa

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but Blospa (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem very odd. Could be normal vandalism, but I wonder if there is more to the user. Very confusing. (Had it been straight vandalism, AIV would have been the place, I think; but I wondered if this quacked.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:37 pm, Today (UTC−8)

I notice the user was blocked whilst reporting this (also, I don't have access to deleted contributions, but when I checked there were at least 6 nonsense pages of just Margaret Thatcher). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Time to blacklist that image and set up an edit filter.Jasper Deng (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−8)

IP problem

129.133.127.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is being very unconstructive, to say the least. He made mass changes to Masonic bodies, and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted. I'd note he claims on the talk page that he doesn't care about the article. He also is warring over terminology on List of Masonic Grand Lodges and again, "doesn't care" about the article, per the talk page. Nevertheless, he obviously isn't staying away from them. He is a lurker or sock, as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be (which an inexperienced user would not know), and he seems to be more interested in being POINTY with User:Blueboar than in actually making contributions to Misplaced Pages. most notably, I asked him to discuss changes, and he replied on my talk page that he "does not write with my permission", which wasn't at all what the point of the statement I made was. So he's creating a problem for some reason, and I think I know who this is, although I'm not going to feed the trolls - a CU, if needed, will serve the same purpose. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want a CU to look at this then try filing a report at WP:SPI, but I'm afraid you're going to need to disclose the other IP/account you think is controlled by the same person and supply diffs showing similarities in their behaviour. I don't think the CheckUsers are inclined to go fishing for possible socks in the way you're describing. Basalisk ⁄_berate 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it'll definitely need some work; I'm not planning a fishing expedition by any means. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the IP's reaction when I reverted an edit he/she made was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. That said, my interaction with him/her has been minimal... so I can not speak to potential puppetry. Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is for sure an IP hopper from within Wesleyan's network - 129.133.127.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked several times for PA, etc., with several edits to similar articles (Skull and Bones and Wesleyan itself, for example). I would therefore suggest that, rather than belaboring the issue, the problem be resolved with a schoolblock, which shouldn't adversely affect much, since universities (including this one) are on winter break. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that other Wesleyan based IP, MSJ. Now that I look at both edit histories, I have to agree... it does seem likely to be the same fellow - he's editing the same articles... over the same issues... and with the same combative (and wikilawyerish) style once someone opposes his edits. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I changed four short paragraphs at the intro of Masonic Bodies. Mass changes? 2."and did not wish to discuss those changes when they were reverted" I did discuss those changes on this complainant's pages. I also told him then that I was not going to change *anything* he had reverted. 3 - "He also is warring over (another page)" I am not, I haven't changed anything on that page, I have had discussions with Blueboar over that page and have not edited anything since we have been discussing. 4 - "as his first reply to me indicated he already knew what my course of action was going to be" I said he was going try to precipitate a war, and then be the first to complain about it to the admins. Which is *exactly* what he as done. 5 - Blueboar is the editor of the other page, and the two are reinforcing each other. They're acting together, although they are pretending on this Administrators noticeboard like Blueboar is a disinterested party.

Look, the situation is plain. Blueboar hovers in wikipedia. He has a dozen, ten dozen, however many pages that he considers his own to superintend, and he vigorously fights anyone who dares change any of "his" articles any way he disagrees with. I've run up against him before in articles in Freemasonry. (I've also run into similar types all across wikipedia.) Unfortunately, Blueboar doesn't write all that well, and his editorial choices are fairly iffy, so that the pages on Freemasonry are pretty miserable. ---I am sure, by this point, other people have noticed that many topics will attract fans, and that fans will have excessively positive conceptions of their darling subjects, and those people, as editors, will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything but the rosiest of pictures to be painted of them in wikipedia. That's Blueboar as far as Freemasonry goes. And the pages on Freemasonry will always suck. Likewise with the pages on Wesleyan University. I challange anyone to look at the edit histories of any major university, and they'll see the same vigilant few names reverting the edits of other editors. (By the way, I type via my ISP for a reason, but I didn't expect *anybody* to publicly post the location of my ISP. Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? Shouldn't MSJapan be reported for that?) MSJapan is another vulture hovering over the Freemasonry pages. I've never met him before, but his escalation of this dispute to the Administrator's notenook was easy to see coming; he's true to type and a blood brother to Blueboar. (Actually, given that both of them are likely Freemasons, it looks like their sworn bortherhood may be coming into play as a lite conspiracy. It also explains how they found each other outside wikipedia.)

By the way I stand by the edits as made. Blueboars edits are cumbersome and confusing, and I defy anyone to make a sensible statement of the mess MSJapan has made of Masonic Bodies. And I have done nothing but stand up to them in their user chat pages. This claim here on this noticeboard is only a result of them looking ridicuous to themselves on their own user pages.

By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. He reverted the whole article, and it has not changed since. **I want anyone who thinks I am an 'edit warrer' because of that, plase post why.** MSJapan should be reported for not following guidelines. Instead he posted omnious messages on my user page. That was intended as a threat and it was a threat. I called him on it, and here we are.

Misplaced Pages is NOT a place where users can freely edit anymore. It has matured to a point where virtually every page has admirers who hover over them, and who fight against any changes whatsoever. There's no scholarly debate here, there's not even debate. There's just indignant pride.

Look no further for the reasons why wikipedia is what it is. And how it has become limited.129.133.127.112 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Need we say more? I rest my case. :>) Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear anon at 129.133.127.112 - Shouldn't that be a violation of privacy guidelines? No - if you look at the bottom of your own IP/contributions page here on wikipedia, you'll see there are links to DNS lookups etc, in order assist wikipedian with finding out location of IPs for these sort of situations - it helps to confirm or deny a pattern of constructive editing OR abuse by those who choose not to register an account. By the procedures of wikipedia, when I changed Masonic Bodies, MSJapan should have read it as changed, and made whatever improvements he saw fit, (perhaps reincorporating some things I removed), and back and forth. He did not. Go look at bold, revert, discuss for a generally accepted discussion of how the system DID work on the part of other users. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You're playing the Masonic conspiracy against you card, it's unrealistic. Based on prior IP contributions and the interactions that have resulted from them, it seems clear that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content.--Vidkun (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Vidkun, your magisterial dismissal of my position "that conflict is what you desire to create on wikipedia, not better content" would have more credibility if my contributions are on many pages, and even my contributions to the pages in dispute here weren't so substantial. As it is, you're just engaging in personal smear, and not the either any principles of reason, or wikipedia guidelines. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Really? Really, Vidkun? Really?129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Vidkun, since I am here to create controversy and disruption, was I the one to make it an Administrator's issue? Was I the one to call the re-write of four paragraphs in an intro a major edit and a outrageous violation of wikipedia policies? Was it me? Just checking, Vidkun. I just want to make sure we all have the facts straight.129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This person is not really an unknown quantity per se - I ran a tool on the two IPs, and found overlap on the List of Masonic Grand Lodges article and talk page from months ago (April 2011 for the article and July 2011 for talk) where the 244 IP was reverted by Blueboar and myself on the article and said IP tried to justify turning the article into a linkfarm "per policy" on the talk page and was contradicted by an uninvolved user. There's also overlap on five other articles. That prior experience pretty much explains the whole situation, but it also proves that this is a perennial problem, as there's overlap editing issues on Skull and Bones going back to 2010. I would therefore still request a schoolblock on this range to prevent future recurrences of disruptive editing, as it seems that the IP is going to blame the system for his behavior as opposed to taking personal responsibility for it. MSJapan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the the conspiracy theories, MSJapan. How come you can't defend your edits on their own terms? 129.133.127.112 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper again

With this edit I am sorry to have to say that Dr. Kuiper already violated the interaction ban we agreed to recently. I have no other recourse that to propose a

Permanent ban on Interaction ban between me and Pieter Kuiper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to where the interaction ban is explicitly made? I cannot find it. --RA (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that suggests there may have been consensus for a ban on direct interaction, but the discussion was not closed before the thread was archived, and no conclusion was explicitly formulated.  --Lambiam 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a request as important (?) as an interaction ban could be shelved without a solution. I remember that another editor specifically tried to take steps so that wouldn't happen in this case. Sorry! I thought there was an interaction ban in place. (Isn't there actually, for all intents and purposes?) Should I request that now, or what should I request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Pieter Kuiper. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no interaction ban in place. Although last time some editors supported an interaction ban, that doesn't mean that there was enough consensus to actually go ahead with it. In fact, I would interpret the relative lack of comments as meaning that most regular editors here didn't think a ban was worth pursuing. Seeing as there was no consensus for an interaction ban last time, your suggestion of an outright ban now seems extreme to me, particularly given that the edit in question looks helpful. Is this the only recent interaction between you and Pieter that you are concerned about? — Mr. Stradivarius 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned, as you may remember (?) from when you tried to help me last time, about any and all interaction between me and a person who has stalked me for years and subjected me to such a huge amout of uncivil, snyde, rude and cruel treatment that the very mention of his name shatters my nerves. I am deathly afraid of Pieter Kuiper, but I guess nobody will ever be able to help me in getting him to stay away. It's even scarier to me that he pops in like this, after a few months, and begins the same old unjustifiable mud-slinging (trying to link to your latest notification about this ANI on his talk page, but don't know if that will succeed- depends on multiple headings there). Just goes to show how that his slurs and insults are unrelenting and never will cease. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for neutral comment here, intending that the image contributors should not factor into such neutrality. Note Kuiper's reply, wearing his "concerned and objective" disguise there. Also note whose image he wants out. It's all personal and vindictive with him, always. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So even though, as you say, there have been months without crossing paths on Misplaced Pages, you still maintain that he is stalking and harassing you? I see only one taking it "personal and vindictive" here, and that is you, Serge. You interpret everything Pieter does in the most negative way possible. This is ridiculous. You make some pretty serious accusations with no diffs to back them up. Someone should do something about these constant frivolous reports of yours. --Atlan (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Atlan: I don't need any more attacks on me prsonally right now, thank you! You are unaware of even a small part of what I have been subjected to for years and the amount of evidence I have submitted before. I thought there was an interaction ban in place when I submitted this. You missed that too. I agree with your last suggestion, except for your cruel adjective "frivolous" and your gross exaggeration "constant". What should be done is the interaction ban I have requested here, and which was supported by a majority of neutral editors then, after such a permament ban had been imposed on Kuiper and me on Commons at my request. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was well aware of your erroneous assumption that there was an interaction ban in place. I am also aware of the "evidence" you submitted before, because I read each and every ANI report by you. That's exactly the problem. Each time it was explained to you that no stalking was taking place. However, you suffer from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you have simply ignored it every time. Yet you manage to read a consensus for an interaction ban when there clearly was none. That's selective reading for you.

Furthermore, you come here and call another editor a stalker, vindictive, uncivil, snide, rude, cruel and a hurler of slurs and insults. Yet when I say you make serious accusations without properly backing them up and you make frivolous reports, you feel personally attacked. Really? You do not see the double standards you apply?

Lastly, what I find especially damning is that the end result of Pieter Kuiper's "terrible and scary revert" is that he suggested a new image on the talk page, which you went ahead and added to the article, without so much as a "thank you" (while going out of your way to thank JoelWhy for not agreeing with you). No, instead you continue pushing for a ban and lamenting the "lack of help" you get here.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never ever had any dealings with you before, that I know of, and you have never attacked me like this or even commented in any way on anything that I've been involved in, as far as I can remember. Why do you read my every entry?!? Who asked you to do that? Am I a special interest of yours without even knowing it? Why am I, if so? How did you find this? Your very strong defense of of a totally innocent Kuiper is almost overwhelming. He certainly has a good compatriot friend in you. I find you incredibly biased in this section and cruelly unfair to me. That's my opinion. So your comments are worth nothing to me or to this discussion, in my opinion. All you are trying to do is blast the living daylights out of me. Your approach is irrelevant. You and I have nothing to discuss. So don't waste any more of your time. Oh, since you found me horrible even in that detail, be sure to thank your friend Kuiper for me for that excellent photo of Duke Birger. It really is a big imporvement. Will you do me that favor, please, since you know I don't want any direct contact with him? Do it in lovely lovely Dutch, it's a great language, and enjoy your lovely friendhip with him. Friendship can be one of life's most beautiful things, and yours with Pieter Kuiper certainly is impressive. I mean that sincerely, and on that happy note, bye bye! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems obvious not one administrator is interested in trying to help with this, and since it only has led to more heartache, I am getting real and withdrawing anything that needs attention. I do that very sadly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mailinator addresses (again)

This problem has been discussed several times on this board, without resolution, including here, here, here and here. I've just received dozens more such abusive emmails; this tame, the Mailinator address was racist abuse of another editor. Since, as far as I understand, an email address must be registered in order to use the send email facility, would it not be possible to put in a filter, such as with abusive usernames, to prevent at least this element of such abuse? RolandR (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't possible—the edit filter has no access to emails sent. Filing a bug report/feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org is the only way I can think of to stop it beyond disabling your email. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a content filter for messages sent. Rather, that when an email is registered to allow posting using the Misplaced Pages email facility, abusive email names, such as the ones used by this vandal (usually themselves containing racist abuse or death threats) not be permitted to register at all. RolandR (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting that feature added would take the same process. Anyway, it would be very easy to circumvent by simply using an innocuously-named address. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think RolandR's basic request is, can we prevent "throw-away" email addresses from being confirmed?--v/r - TP 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And the answer to that is to file a bugzilla feature request, either to block Mailinator addresses from being used, or to create a blacklist we can edit for allowed email addresses. Prodego 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The above replies are good, but what can the community do that is more helpful than effectively dismissing the OP to a blind alley (since an individual asking for a significant change is unlikely to get results)? Where should a discussion be held to get some solid consensus that technical assistance is required? WP:VPR? Can those with influence seek to engage people familiar with MediaWiki enhancements? Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this requires a MediaWiki tweak it's probably best if you request it at bugzilla. —Jeremy v^_^v 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but we all know about that there is a close-to-zero chance of significant work being performed when an unknown account makes a random bugzilla suggestion requiring significant work. I am asking that someone clueful make a suggestion about how to proceed because abuse of the mail system is a serious problem. Yes, we can all ignore it because it's only happening to someone else (solution: that person should disable their email, that is, we can each be picked off one-by-one). However, when reports of abusive editing are made, it is standard for people to help—that's what is needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there's already a related bugzilla . There have been some contradictory comments but my understanding is the foundation is already aware of this and looking in to the best solution. I'm not entirely sure whether more community pressure would help, I would have expected the nature of the emails is enough to convince the foundation that this is a serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is, there's nothing we can do. This is something that would require a code change, not something the community can deal with. It's not "ignoring" the problem to point them to the bugzilla system. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the above is well intentioned, but as it completely misses the point I have to respond. Everyone here knows that a code change is required. We also know that sending an individual to bugzilla about this issue will achieve nothing. For any chance of success, the community would have to conduct a wider discussion and reach a solid consensus requesting an enhancement. People with a clue would need to be involved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First, back off on the passive-aggressive insults. Second, "a wider discussion" would not achieve anything, as the community cannot enact the change. If you feel that bugzilla "achieve(s) nothing," that's your perogative; but that doesn't change the reality that the community cannot implement the fix you want. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with an angry person

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

In the past he's followed me but now he's not even pretending to have wikipedia's interests in mind he's just reverting my efforts if he doesn't like the facts even if proper citations are being made.

What's more he's started to engage in name calling. --Protostan (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Who, what, when, where, why and how? Phearson (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump. troll, on the Jared Lee Loughner page, and I don't know what his problem is but he's made it clear he doesn't care how many good citations I have backing my edit he's going to remove them. --Protostan (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the contribs, this seems to be related to Protostan's recent POV edits to the religious views of Jared Lee Loughner and Anders Behring Breivik. I believe the PA that Protostan is referring to is being called a troll in an edit summary reverting him. Protostan has not posted to the talk pages of either of those articles, nor has he posted to the talk pages of editors who reverted him. This AN/I post seems to be in response to a recent NPOV Level-4 warning from Von Restorff. Chillllls (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Protostan has a long history of ignoring consensus (and policy) to insert his POV into articles. He didn't get off to a good start on the Loughner article, when he inserted 'Category:Atheist philosophers' into it soon after it was created, for no apparent reason at all beyond troublemaking. Since then he has repeatedly tried to insert material related to Loughner's supposed atheism - in spite of there being no source for this other than vague statements made by former schoolmates, and in spite of it apparently having nothing whatsoever with Loughner's notability. And by the way, I wasn't angry. Grumpy no doubt, but I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion thread does not present edit differences and therefore should be closed. TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how he doesn't want to deal with my having proper citations for my latest edit? He'd rather speculate about my motive. --Protostan (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice how Protostan started this thread with speculations about my motive? Notice how Protostan makes no comment on the fact that I wasn't the only one reverting his edits? He'd rather avoid any discussion of his own behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'd rather talk about my citations and why you refuse to acknowledge them. --Protostan (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you would - but this is AN/I, and we discuss behaviour here, not content disputes. You had the talk page available for that, and chose not to use it. Still, if you wan't to discuss sources, can you show me the one you used for the 'atheist philosopher' category you tried to insert into the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept proper citations is an obvious behaviour problem you are having. --Protostan (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't obvious to anyone else here. What is obvious is that you chose to edit-war, rather than engage in discussion on the article talk page. Anyway, this isn't a forum for tit-for-tat namecalling. Unless anyone has any constructive input, I'm done here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your failure to read the citations is not my fault but it is a problem for anyone who has to deal with you. --Protostan (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said on Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Even_more_pov_pushing I think it would be a good idea for Protostan to apologize to AndyTheGrump and try to do some edits that actually improve Misplaced Pages and are not religion-related. Von Restorff (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• - "troll elsewhere"

Lets look at the source:

• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm

• "An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life."

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/jared-lee-loughner-arizona-shooting

• "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world."

Deletion seems unjustified, the edit summary of "troll elsewhere" is not appropriate in any case.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

His being legally insane has nothing to do with being atheistic. There are plenty of religious legally insane also. But thanks for tipping us off to your Dutch IP address. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Normally I would close this thread but the boomerangs keep on coming, maybe it is better to keep it open for a bit. ;-) Von Restorff (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@84.106.26.81 Hi! I spent a couple of seconds looking at your contribs and it seems like you do not like Andy. Your comment is rather pointless since it is quite obvious that no admin will block AndyTheGrump for that editsummary, they are not stupid. Lets check to see if Protostan did troll on that article, because if he did then that is what caused Andy's editsummary. This is clearly trolling and Protostan is obviously an SPA pushing a POV. I will have to spend more time looking at your contribs in order to determine if the same applies to you. Von Restorff (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the topic. I only looked at the deleted source and the edit summary. I don't see any trolling even if it would be acceptable to use edit summaries for that kind of expressions.

Here user:AndyTheGrump removes a source to:

• "I fail to see how this source supports the material it is being cited for"

The source states:

• http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,407154,00.html#ixzz1j8hD4uNv

• "In another TV episode, Guillen visited the lab of one James Patterson, who demonstrated a gizmo that he claimed used plastic beads covered with layers of metal to produce nuclear energy without radiation — a version of the discredited "cold fusion" claim."

Our article used this as a source for:

• "it is one of several cells that some observers classified as cold fusion; cells which have been the subject of media interest. The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists."

There is nothing wrong with the way the source is used.

If you look at the number of contributions AndyTheGrump makes we should be worried about his failure to see how this source supports the material it is being cited for.84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, be stubborn, I will simply close this thingy. Why? Because this is not the correct page to voice your opinion about Andy. Feel free to contact him on his talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I'm exasperated and at a loss. This article is about a physics theory proposed by Antony Garrett Lisi (note that there are similar problems on that article, too). There are two distinct sides, both of which seem to not understand or care whatsoever about Misplaced Pages's policies, with only one or two editors (I consider myself to be one) in the middle. One side thinks that Lisi is, well, words that I can't use for fear of breaking WP:BLP. They think that the theory is complete bunk, hype, and a public relations travesty. The other side thinks that Lisi's theory is new, imperfect but promising, no different than any other new physics theory, and deserving of a warm limelight (and that the detractors are basically envious string theorists). The first side wants both articles deleted, or, at least, stubbed and left with no info about the science itself. Deletion is out of the question, of course, because there are dozens upon dozens of sources that discuss both Lisi and the theory (what happened is that the mainstream press got excited that this "surfer-dude" physicist, working outside of the academy, came up with a theory that set the physics world on edge). The other side wants the entire theory explained in great detail, both mathematically and scientifically, at a level that 99.9999% of Misplaced Pages readers could never understand. This is really also out of the question because there are quite a number of sources that say that, unfortunately, Lisi is simply wrong (the main paper was never even published in a peer reviewed journal).

I'm fed up with the two sides. Most recently, I've "threatened" to just start collapsing every discussion that calls for the article to be deleted, because that's so obviously not what Misplaced Pages policy says. I'm also sick to death of having to have the same fight over and over again with the ones who don't want anything removed. Furthermore, Lisi himself has been discussing this off site, and it is entirely likely that either Lisi or one of his supporters, as well as some of his direct opponents, are actively editing the article and/or talk page. Just recently, 2 editors have said that they're planning to take me to the Administrator's Notice Board for my threats (see Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything#Does Misplaced Pages need this article and, if so, what form should it take?). So I'm taking the initiative and doing it myself.

Of course, the question is inevitably, "What Administrative Action is requested here?" First, please review the conduct of all users there, and see if anyone needs to be blocked for BLP violations (of particular concerns there are posts by (User:71.106.167.55), such as ), or tendentious editing. See if anyone sees any meat or sockpuppetry. Please also review my own conduct, and trout or sanction me as appropriate--my frustration may well have gotten the better of me, especially in the last few days. Ideally, I'd like a neutral admin or two watching the talk page and stopping tendentious editing before it gets out of hand (as if the article were under discretionary sanctions). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An article written in the tone that is written in which contains the phrase "was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal" and "largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community" should send red flags waving. Honestly I'd support deleting it, we don't need any more pseudoscience here. And that is what that appears to be to me. That article seems to have rushed through AfD last time with ILIKEIT type "look, it is in the news!" support. That doesn't demonstrate a lasting notability (notability isn't temporary). This theory seems to have no lasting support or impact. Send it back to AfD, perhaps. Prodego 05:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An exceptionally easy decision. Mainstream science ignores it. So should we. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if true, that's not how policy works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm an interested editor who hasn't done much with the article because it was outside of my expertise, but since Lisi's public presentations have focused on the visualizations of his theory which is within my geometric expertise at least.Qwyrxian has been patient and fair, although it was his deletion of a large portion of the mathematical aspects of the article that pulled me in . I appreciated the detailed descriptions of the theory even if there was much I don't understand, and I'm one of the 99.999% too, in terms of judging its failings. There's advanced mathematics in the theory only really taught to math (or physics) grad students, although Misplaced Pages has a great deal to say about this advanced math, like Lie algebras of E8 and the subgroups. I find Lisi's paper and article represent an excellent inspiration for aspiring math students for a reason to try to learn more about this abstract math. Similarly for me the theory was the first attempt I ever saw that offered me a "map", that the hundreds of subatomic particles had a structure I could understand, and again, there's wide wikipedia articles on subatomic physics articles. So my interest in "explaining" the theory is to connect Lisi's use of weight diagrams to show known and speculated relations between the particle and charges of all these particles. These diagrams seem to do a great deal to help explain the relations between the particles to nonexperts, and are used in many papers, while wikipedia editors who added the physics articles haven't included them. As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question since Lisi still works on it, and his public presentations shows a progression from the standard model to various extensions which are speculative, ending with his E8 proposal. So it seems fair to me, that wikipedia, with its vast math and physics articles gain by Lisi's paper as an article, showing the progression of theories, and I think if there's people on wikipedia who are able to understand and summarize the model and reference their sources properly, it seems inspiring to those who are interested, and actually harmless to those who fear science is being destroyed by a speculative idea they don't like. So I'll keep learning, and if I can help, I will. It would be nice if the harshes critics could think of some constructive on the talk pages. Qwyrxian suggested rants be deleted, and I see his reasoning, but accept suppression can just makes ranters more self-righteous. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question". Possibly. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to close it. Take it elsewhere - our science articles are based on mainstream consensus. If you want to promote a new and radical theory, find a new place to do it. That isn't what Misplaced Pages is here for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

His work will exist whether or not we have a Misplaced Pages article on it. Indeed, we can even export this article somewhere else. But that mainstream theoretical physicists immediately reject it is all I need to know. Misplaced Pages's science articles need to be about science. Speculative theories that are completely disregarded by the mainstream don't belong, under the same sort of theory that leads us to the WP:OR policy. Prodego 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of our policy (I'm speaking against Prodego and AndytheGrump here) is that even fringe topics should be covered by Misplaced Pages, so long as there are reliable sources to cover it. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this paper and Lisi have been covered by both mainstream news sources (quite a bit) and scientific articles (a little bit). This is why we have articles on Water-fuelled cars, Hollow Earth, and Tired light. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia of science only, it's a general encyclopedia, so even if Lisi's theory is pure bunkum (or just plain wrong), the cultural and historical aspects of it need to be adequately covered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no historical or cultural significance. I can walk up to anyone on the street and I would venture not 1 in 100, maybe not even 1 in 1000 would have heard of this. It is also not significant in the scientific community, as evidenced by the mainstream scientific community ignoring it. So then who needs to be educated about this topic? Prodego 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That same man in the street will also not have heard of several dozen quite well-established and important scientific theories and likely doesn't know what continent Myanmar is on, so the "man in the street test" isn't terribly relevant. What is relevant are our standards on notability, and this clearly passes, given the coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your average "man on the street" has heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but if you go to any university physics/astronomy department, most there have heard of him. "Woo" can be notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Those have significance in the scientific community though. Prodego 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as one of the neutral ones. I know the theory very well, in almost all its intimate details, which is one of the reasons I was able to respond point by point to one of the editors pro-Lisi that is very stubborn when it comes to remove any part of the page and to add any criticism. At the same time I support the existence of the page and some degree of explanation of it and don't agree with all the recurring users and requests to delete the page or to erase each detail about Lisi's theory. Lisi isn't a person with his own theory of the world. His theory has flaws but it was coherent with the general approaches of particle physics and at least he holds a PhD in physics (just to say that it's better than the hollow earth theory). "As to whether Lisi's theory is wrong is an open question", this, unfortunately is a false statement. Lisi's theory is currently considered wrong because there are mathematical problems with it (as in how fermions actually are fermions in his theory). Of course, in the future Lisi might solve this, but he could be solving this just changing (at some degree) the theory. But the current version certainly is wrong. There is a published theorem that states it pretty clearly. In the year long discussion (at this point), I have written from some different IP's (they called me 24 or 98), although stating it was the same me, and just recently created this user because lately it was becoming difficult with the presence of many other IPs (so I first started using a name as signature, then I decided to actually create one because editor above Tom Ruen asked me for my talk page as a place where we could talk of some physics details in the attempt of including weight diagrams to explain other article physics articles and models, the official ones). I had to avoid editing other wikipages from the same IP given that this page brings people to harass you. Even Lisi in his offsite comments tried (ironically) to out me (who cares who I am anyways, haha) when he was the first one to be accused to be secretly editing himself the page. But Qwyrxian even if sometimes was at the point of being upset, I think is managing the situation quite well. It is rather hard to keep a neutral attitude when you deal with a page that is highly polarizing and at the same time you can't be weighing the two sides equally because the mainstream physics weighs more than the almost fringe theory side. ~GT~ (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Context note: This came up a week or so ago at WT:PHYS#An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. The discussion there may provide useful background as to how this fits in with the scientific community as a whole. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond my Ken. However, this isn't the place to have a debate about inclusion, but to discuss how to help Qwyrxian.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian believes that users are acting disruptively and attempts to engage have failed, then it's time to work through the steps at WP:DR to build a case for that. If, on the other hand, everyone is acting in good faith but has widely divergent opinions on the issues being debated, it's time to go through the content-related steps at WP:DR. Both of these have already been pursued to some extent (pinging WT:PHYS for additional opinions on both aspects, and now pinging here for additional opinions/advice (mostly about behaviour)). If I understand correctly, the next steps are probably mediation (to defuse conduct issues) and either polls regarding specific changes or article content RFCs on broader issues (for content). It then gets kicked back up here if tendentious editing continues even with mediation and sufficient discussion to establish what content is and is not encyclopedic/appropriate. That said, it's been a while since I've been involved in anything like this (thankfully), so I may not be up to date on what the next steps are.

With regards to content-related discussion in this thread, a discussion of whether or not the article meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, or whether or not the article's description of its scientific merit matches reality, is relevant to some extent: who is being tendentious or editing non-neutrally depends on what the facts actually are. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Come on guys - this is what we have policies for.
• If it is notable, then it has passed the basic test for 'should it have an article.' It's been to AfD and been kept - the parties that think the keep decision was wrong have a further avenue at WP:DRV. We have plenty of articles that people don't like - that's not a good reason to delete them.
• If it is notable, purports to be science, but is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, then it can be dealt with under the guidelines for pseudoscience - which do not say that Misplaced Pages doesn't carry articles on pseudoscience topics.
• you can add all the content you like about what the theory says, but you do in fairness have to point out prominently (and with references) that mainstream science disagrees. And you have to bear in mind that it is not Misplaced Pages's role to debunk it, that is the role of secondary sources which can then be cited in the article.
• now does anyone need blocking for edit warring, disruption, personal attacks etc .....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On disruption, Special:Contributions/71.106.167.55 has been the singular ranter, like . Tom Ruen (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised (and disappointed) that we have experienced editors saying the article should be deleted. It's clearly meets notability guideline. Whether the theory is true or fringe is irrelevent and has absolutely nothing to do with notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with AQFK and with Elen's sensible scheme of action. Issue blocks to anyone being disruptive and edit the article according to our policies for fringe science (or failed theories). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to the talk page discussion late in the day with a rather thorough analysis of the impact of Lisi's paper on the mainstream science community based on the science citation databases. I found that the impact of the paper had been very minor and suggested that the interesting features of the story were the sociological rather than scientific ones and the article should reflect this. I was immediately accused by Qwyrxian, falsely and on no basis whatsoever, of off-Wiki collaboration. He threatened to collapse the contributions of editors he disagreed with. Looking back over the debate I find his conduct to have been reprehensible. He acts as if he owns the debate. He has insulted, bullied and threatened to censor editors with whom he disagrees and then, when he still did not get his way, threw a tantrum by bringing the matter here. This behaviour is unacceptable. Qwyrxian self-confessedly has little technical knowledge of the subject, as is clear from the first paragraph of this thread and, more importantly, appears to have little grasp of the social dynamics of the scientific community or Misplaced Pages' policies on notability. This is a content dispute and should not have been brought to WP:AN/I. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

I brought the issue to ANI because 2 other editors told me they were going to bring my behavior here, so rather than wait in "fear" of that, I did it myself. I should not have accused you of off-wiki collaboration, and my apologies for that. The problem, as I said before, is that we know for a fact that there has been off-wiki promotion/denigration of these articles before, and we keep getting people who as Elen points out above, seem to forget that our notability policies don't in any way care that the theory has been rejected. My "threats to censor" were an attempt to do something to break the perpetual problem that occurs on that talk page of suggestions for deletion or stubbing that are not compliant with our policies. This approach is sometimes used on other talk pages where discussion is tendentious. If it was overbearing (the relevant diffs for my comments are and . However, I as far as I know, I haven't insulted, bullied, or threatened any editors--if I have, please provide diffs. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, I actually have a better grasp of our notability policies than you (and several other editors) do. Finally, while there is a content dispute, there's also a behavioral problem. If there is anyone with a load of time on their hands, I implore you--read through the last month or so of talk page contributions, and consider whether some of the editing is disruptive. Including mine--if I'm a problem there, I'll take whatever trouts, blocks, or topic bans are appropriate. I tried to walk away from this article once before (when it was mainly Scientryst and 76 that were going back and forth), but the terrible behavior there keeps drawing me back in, in some sort of vain attempt to remind people that we do actually have policies that apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be a case for bringing the article to AfD for a second time as much has changed since the last AfD in 2007. The scientific community has now brought down its verdict on the paper, finding it to be of little importance through voting with its feet and not citing it in their literature. An AfD debate would provide a picture of current opinion easier to read than the to and fro rhetoric of the talk page. It would also bring the matter to the attention of the experienced participants on pages such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science. There is the problem of Lisi encouraging his fanboys to edit Misplaced Pages so arguments will have to be scrutinised with care. As I said on the article talk page, I think that there is some sociological interest in the matter of how public relations promotion generated so much interest outside the scientific community in a relatively insignificant paper, so I might be persuaded to vote for a Merge or Redirect.

On a tangent: I am concerned by the premature closure of many AfD debates. For example the 2007 AfD of this article was closed after only six hours, giving some people no chance to respond. I think that debates should be open for at least 24 hours to cover the sleep/work cycles in different parts of the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Xxanthippe if you bring it to AfD, it will be Snow closed in a day or less because the article obviously meets WP:GNG. Again, I'm trying to say this as nicely and clearly as possible: Misplaced Pages does not consider the fact the fact that the theory is discredited to have any bearing whatsoever on whether the topic should have an article on it. Again, Water-fuelled cars is a perfect example--it's a completely obvious and ridiculous con, and will never be a valid scientific/engineering theory, but that does not mean that we should even consider it for deletion. You're attempting to apply your own standard of what belongs in Misplaced Pages, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be a snow keep as some contributors to this thread have gone further than me and called for a delete. Of course, there are always the Lisi acolytes to play their part. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Whether "snow" or not, it would undoubtedly be a "keep" as it's clearly notable. Arguing otherwise is really a waste of energy which could be put into balancing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Xxanthippe: You're not listening. This theory's reception by the scientific community has absolutely nothing to do with notability on Misplaced Pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design, for example, is not accepted as legitimate by the scientific community, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article about it. In fact, not only do we have an article on ID, it's passed both good article and featured article statuses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some people have not grasped the point that I made in the title "Does Misplaced Pages need this article and, if so, what form should it take?" (my italics) of the thread that I started on the article's talk page. The situation is that the consensus of the scientific community has found the paper to be a worthy try but a well-meaning failure and of no further interest within the scientific community. There are thousand of papers that come into this category and Misplaced Pages does not have articles about them. What is different here is that the paper has garnered interest outside the scientific community because of the public relation activities of its proponents (surfer-dude etc.). The only reason for interest in the matter is the promotional activities associated with Lisi and his supporters. These deserve to be developed further and the article on the paper subsumed into the BLP on Lisi. By implying that the paper still retains scientific credibility the article on it misleads Misplaced Pages's readers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, I hear you saying you want: (1) To make sure no unsuspecting readers of wikipedia will accidently come to the conclusion that Lisi's E8 theory has any credibility with the wider scientific community, and if there are sufficient documentation, you ought to be satisified? (2) To have minimimal details of the theory to be explained on wikipedia because "real scientist" think its bunk, not even wrong, etc. Well, I think (1) is satified by the existing content, and (2) is just your opinion, perhaps among many, but you justify it by claiming a hundreds of other neglected wrong theories that are unfairly ignored on Misplaced Pages. Well, maybe so, AND maybe notability is a game of hyped propaganda that honest scientists avoid in their humble incremental theories sitting in unread papers waiting to be discovered like sleeping beauty, if only the prince would stop looking at those hyped fake princesses on the movie posters. I wonder! Thinking of one of my favorite mathematicians, Kepler, he started his career at 25 with a beautiful bunch of bunk, Mysterium Cosmographicum, a crazy idea to explain why the planets have the spacing they do, from the circum/inscribed spheres of the five platonic solids and for a moment it fit all the facts as known then, with a bit of fudging, but no apparent reality to his theory, which could only fit a six planet solar system. But it was a wild intuitive jump forward, and when improved data from Tycho denied his theory, he moved on, and we have a beautful wrong model of the solar system. So I imagine Lisi's model is something similar. He took a leap of faith, and filled in the details as if it might be true, and it stands as a "real model" that may or may not represent reality, but is a model none the less, and he used hype and the public imagination to promote his idea, hoping others would be inspired, and surely still hopes. So I'm sure "honest" scientists who refuse to participate in hype, will sadly never get their papers in wikipedia, BUT perhaps there really are hundreds of wrong models out there that DESERVE a little hype, and could be notable on wikipedia for what they represent, and Misplaced Pages would be better for that. Who knows? I don't think science is harmed by showing its mistakes and open questions where attempts failed. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you diminish Lisi's paper too much. It is better than not even wrong, it has actually been proved to be wrong. Although a failure, it is an honorable failure. It at least provides the benefit that nobody is likely to make the same mistakes again. This is the standard operating procedure of routine normal science and nothing remarkable. I hope that Lisi will carry on his work and go on to do great things. But Misplaced Pages will write about those great things after they are achieved, not before. We do seem to agree that any Misplaced Pages material about this particular incident should be based on the hype, not the substance, because there isn't much of the latter. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

I tried to state your case to find common ground but I certainly don't think I agree the wikipedia article should only express the fact that it was a hyped theory, rather than basic details of the model itself which you say has been proven wrong. But there's a flaw in your argument that Misplaced Pages can't deal with except to state the facts - the counter-proof might not be true or complete, while Lisi yet offers a follow up paper with reasoning why the proof might not apply as claimed. So that's why supportive editors like User:Scientryst get a little testy about the wording of "wrong" versus "incomplete" versus a seemingly implied "intractable deadend", unworthy to look at. So I think there's a middle ground here, for a neutral voice that can keep the tension of the yet unknown. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User Zenanarh

User Zenanarh has used systematically personal attack in the following discussion. , despite the discussion was already mediated by an administrator. I have not replied before in order not to influence the decision of the administrator about the matter of the dispute.
This is over now and I need to report this incident. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you provide links to the supposed personal attacks. I do believe that you should bring your objections to the administrator mediating the debate, rather than make a post on ANI. I understand, from my past involvement with the Zadar issue (in 2007, if i recall correctly), that the debate is a contentious one but I urge all parties involved to discuss the issue with civility. Bringing this matter before ANI will only escalate the issue. —Dark 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances this is what I would do. The thing is that I was very patient during the mediation despite the attacks of user Zenanarh (he was also warned by the mediator to have a calmer attitude). This user has been recently blocked for the following reason: "has expressed and demonstrated a deliberate desire to disrupt Misplaced Pages", but apparently this sanction has not been very effective on his/her behaviour.

I report hereafter the extracts of some of his/her attacks from the talks , and if you want to put them into context.

• This is just another problem of the same kind with literature, since Italian literature is not objective, it usurps any prominent person from Croatia in the past. If you defend such extremism you are an extremist and from now on I will treat you as the one. Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Very nice. But I don't trust Silvio. His comment, now removed, was manipulation of what I wrote. Please, don't trust his citations, check it. Zenanarh (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to add that claims of extremistic ideologies cannot be a part of multiple perspectives. You can inform people that Mein Kampf treated the Jews as the animals, but you cannot edit Jews as they are the animals and use Mein Kampf as reference. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• I cannot socialize with an agenda warrior."" Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is obvious in our case, that Italian claims about Italianship of Dalmatia were coming from the Italian Irredentists and Fascists in the past and that same claims are sometimes coming from some modern Italians at present. Zenanarh (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I can see we have problem – your poor knowledge about Zadar, Dalmatia and Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Silvio, don't make jokes with me. I have no time for craps. Zenanarh (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• It's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else); Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is more available if you need...

--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, I can't see any of those as personal attacks, although some are a little impolite. Yes, some are calling your editing into question, but you're doing the same to Zenanarh. The first is probably the indicator of the problem, and ought really to be dealt with as part of the mediation if it is still ongoing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, if this is normal behaviour I guess Misplaced Pages (at least the English one) is not the right place for me. I am fine with boldness but I did not qualify of extremist, ignorant, forger or manipulator my counterparty. Where can you find such comments from my side?

Well, I think the mediation is finished. This is the reason I am reporting this only now. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not "taking sides". But you must know that bringing this to ANI isn't going to look favorably upon yourself either, and will potentially escalate the dispute. I agree with Elen in that I do not see a personal attack in the comments above, although it may be heated and be misconstrued as such. I suggest that you bring this issue into formal mediation and keep your cool - Zenanarh should do the same. —Dark 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and I do not think nor believe that you are "taling sides". The issue - and you can understand clearly checking it by yourself - it that almost each talk that touch articles like Zadar, Dalmatian history and art gets into lenghty and impolite discussion (to use Elen's wording). Many contributors to these articles do not see with favour contributions or modifications from non Croat users. Almost invariably Italian contributors as potential extremist and all new users (it was also my case) are seen as potential sock puppets (?!).

However I understand what you mean when you write that there is no ground for a claim on ANI (albeit I did not like at all the reference he made to ). Someone else will report Zenanarh in the future. This user is genuinely aggressive, no doubt he will be blocked again one day. In the meantime I will avoid any contact with him. It does not matter if he/she will have easier life in imposing his views. I do not want to be insulted again just because my sources are different. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to comment that I responded to a third opinion for this matter and we discussed in length on the talk page here: Talk:Zadar and in my own user namespace where I tried to resolve the issue as a "mediator" position here: User:Whenaxis/Zadar. I kept reminding both of them of 4 steps they should always remember:

]

At this time, from a third party "mediator" perspective, I don't think this is needed because I think we've resolved majority, if not all, the issues because Zenanarh has lightened up and is responding in a friendly manner now. Thanks Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis you are right but the result of Luciano Laurana as Croat is quite original if you consider Britannica or Getty.

• http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Luciano+Laurana
• http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=luciano+laurana&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500007368

--Grifter72 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, everyone would have responded in a friendly manner after such a favorable decision. Before your decision he was friendly at all. I still do not understand why the sources I provided were not taken in consideration. We are facing a situation where for an article on en:wiki, local sources (Croatian) have been preferred to reputable international available on line. Perhaps I was not good in defending my arguments, but still remains for me a mistery how could Whenaxis stating about the content of the Croatian sources unless he does not speak Croatian (and he owns the books). But I prefer not discussing of it otherwise I will get sick. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys and Walter Görlitz

Note: I've grouped the twothree posts above as they are related post and counter-post. --RA (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys is displaying uncivil behaviour again

User:RealCowboys and User:Suitcivil133 are fans of rival football clubs.

RealCoboys made a mild personal attack, commenting on the editor, against Suitcivil133 in an edit summary on one of the articles that is in contention. RealCoboys then tagged Suitcivil133's talk page with a WP:NPA template after I had already tagged it for the same behaviour.

RealCoboys was blocked on 29 December 2011 for personal attacks and has only been back for five days. The editor's comments, discussion and and general behaviour often digress to trash-talking and name-calling, when edit summaries are left or talk is used to discuss. The editor doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL and may need an admin to explain it more clearly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come off it, that's not a personal attack. He was unwise to characterise the material he was reverting as "vandalism", but apart from that he was right to re-write the title of that section as the previous one was definitely unencyclopaedic. If all you're complaining about here is an edit summary containing the word "bandwagoner" I don't think there's anything actionable. Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bandwagoner" was not needed but not uncivil. Civility problems - and I don't see any here to be honest - can be taken to WP:WQA. GiantSnowman 10:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No administrative attention is needed in regards to the civility issues, as of yet. I urge the editors to remain civil in all their interactions, and stop templating each other. In regards to the content dispute, I tend to agree with Cowboys in that labelling Barcelona's reign as "Football Domination" is sensationalist, violating both WP:NPOV and the sub-title naming conventions of WP:MOS. More so, the lack of independent 3rd party sources in reference to this is a violation of our policy on original research and verifiability. But I digress - ANI is the wrong venue to discuss this. I urge the parties to cease edit warring or sanctions will be impossed on the parties involved. —Dark 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly made false statements and or accusations that I have been uncivil in "tash talking" or "personal attacks". I understand that his job is to be a good editor but he feels the need that if I use as so much mention another editor im simply "attacking" them. Ive already been banned once and I realized personal attacks on wikipedia is not right but he should have no business to look thru my past history to further hurt my status. RealCowboys (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for here? Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RealCowboys, I'm not sure what you're looking for either. You have indeed been blocked twice (no, as far as I can see you have never been banned). Your history is right there, and always will be. In order to distance yourself from those actions, you need to act within policy. The best way to not be accused of future personal attacks is to not make comments that could be seen as personal attacks. One important civility issue is to ensure that you never call an edit vandalism unless it is, indeed, vandalism - some people get overly sensitive at being called a vandal. If you're having trouble having polite conversation to resolve an issue, then WP:WQA is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. And then the editor tagged my page with WP:NPA, but the action is not clear. I can see that this is going to take a great deal of patience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter has a history of choosing which side he feels is "attacking" without trying to resolve anything. Judging by the way he worded "This is funny." it seems he is taking this as a joke, I'm warning him to be civil. RealCowboys (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That may not be funny, but this edit summary is, especially considering the first part of what you removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No kid, I can remove any comments on MY talk page, quit trolling on my personal business. RealCowboys (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Twist, I know you can remove comments from your talkpage. The post from me was a very clear attempt to be helpful so that you can avoid future problems like your first two blocks. You are, indeed, quite welcome to remove that ... however, the silliness begins when you remove it at the same time as you remove an altercation with a completely different editor about an unrelated editor, especially when you refer to "rights" (which you have none on a private website). Add the incivility above (for example, referring to someone as "kid" in order to try to gain the dominant position) shows that you're really not listening to those trying to actually help you. That'll never go well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Real, maintain your civility here please. —Dark 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First off BWiliker,im sorry I couldnt tell if you wernt a kid, due to your juvinile responce the first time. I have a right to "defend" myself when its dicks like you trying to be somewhat "more" then me. IDC block me forever, I have ways of unbanning my ip adress anyways. And just for the record dont be a sarcastic asshole to me in the first place if you want to "help" me. That goes for anyone thinking they could talk to me how they want. RealCowboys (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked RealCowboys for a week for the above comment. 28bytes (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

User:Suitcivil133 has repeatedly be accusing me of being "biased", "personally I don't care what the headline will be but this RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving) should not delete information and lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct, or delete information on a rival football clubs Misplaced Pages page without any discussion before deleting it as he is biased." He feels that any change I make to his favorite clubs page is automatically vandalism. I recently changed a header title on FC Barcelona that said "Football Domination" because I felt that is a POV remark and to him that is "vadalism" and im "deleting information lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct". When has this ever been proven correct? I ask for him to stop refering to me as being biased and should be blocked for a short period of time, just as I was. RealCowboys (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Without looking at anything else, "Football Domination" is not an appropriate section title, IMO. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, without looking at anything else, agree that "Football Domination" is not appropriate. (I've also again grouped these threads.) --RA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of block

I've just blocked Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring and misusing rollback on Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. As blocks of admins are usually controversial, review is welcome. Salvio 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the block was fine. I had been going to revoke his rollback, but I found he was an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, after Arthur Rubin was warned - what an amazingly silly edit-war over a truly trivial disagreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing Reaper. This edit war has been going on over several months and on more than one article, and for the life of me I can't see anything wrong with the link anyway--Jac16888 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to say. Clearly war-editing, but also giving a message to dynamic IP users how easy it is to evade being dragged to ANI like those of us with the sense (or balls) to register, without being blocked due to technological reasons it sends out a bad message, and they will continue being disruptive. The article needs semi-protecting, to show that we don't allow anons to take the piss. If IPs are human to, make their gaming less easy. Ma®©usBritish  16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the protection of the page, I just warned the IP about edit warring, instead of issuing a block, because he hadn't edited since 11:33 (UTC) today... Salvio 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point - although in this case the IP has what limited consensus there is with it. But if it didn't, there would be no real point in blocking it, as the person behind it would just reset their router again. Arthur was significantly silly though - if I was adding info in an article about a Statutory Instrument issued by the UK government, I'd probably link to Statutory Instrument (UK) as well, just so folks knew what one of the things was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article (in the state that I do not personally favour) and left a note on the Talk page - as soon as anyone thinks there is a sufficient consensus to make or not make the change, the article can be unprotected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• While this particular edit-war seems to be pointless, it has to be said that the IP-user in question, is a long time disruptive user on most of the climate pages. He/She is recognized by the links (mostly unrelated to the edit) used in edit-comments, and usage of the talk-pages as his/her personal news aggregator. Iirc, he/she has been mentioned several times here, and as Rubin says blocks are pretty impossible since its on a dynamic address. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The main "bonus" of these highly dynamic IPs is that they can force impetuous editors into breaching 3RR, and once blocked can use a fresh IP and the "block time" as an opportunistic moment to revert and edit further. In some cases dynamic socks could be used a brilliant cover to knock out a competitive registered editor, then login as an apparently innocent editor, claim the IP was right all along: game, set, and match. The blocked user isn't going to risk another 3RR, and unless SPI determines anything solid and is able to act (in many cases rangeblocks cause too much collateral damage), who is to know? Dynamic IPs are more of an annoyance to long-standing editors, because of their ability to avoid blocks, ANI, policy enforcement and such. Semi-protects help, but the limiting factor is the best of two evils. This is why many editors are pro-Registered access only, I suppose. Ma®©usBritish  17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS'. Please cease speculation on this kind of behavior. Longtime disruptive IP addresses know the secret knock to get into the treehouse as well. Hasteurhttps://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=16 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"This humorous essay contains comments by one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. It is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline" ...and that's where I stopped reading... Ma®©usBritish  04:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a point of information on WP:BEANS, it's not a complete joke (cf. WP:MMO; or, more specifically, {{humor}} and {{humorous essay}}) – it contains a serious point: not to spell out how to disrupt Misplaced Pages in public fora: just coated in amusing language. It is also rated as a High-impact essay. It Is Me Here 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to me to be a very (extremely?) tendentious IP. Arthur did not do multiple reverts in any short time period, so I am unsure that anything more than the formal warning was called for, and a symmetrical warning ought to have been appended for each IP address. Then future admins can see that the IP has been used disruptively in the past. And reduce block to "time served" as that is IMO a reasonable act. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts don't have to be done in a short time period to qualify as edit-warring - it's a content dispute (and a pretty lame one at that), and both parties have been blatantly edit-warring over it for *months* -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum...so we've blocked an admkn in otherwise good standing and assumed that the IP that won't register an account is adding trustworthy info?MONGO 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not trustworthy info, merely a wikilink... Salvio 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked now, with Salvio's agreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Batshit crazy rants"

Purplebackpack89

User:GoodDay and User:Djsasso - interaction and topic bans

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

Hi all. Some of you may or may not know, but I am one of the mentors of GoodDay (talk · contribs) (the other being Danbarnesdavies (talk · contribs). Over the past few weeks, I've observed that GoodDay and Djsasso (talk · contribs) run into each other quite often, and normally have very heated, at times uncivil discussions. These generally revolve around the use of diacritics in articles relating to hockey. The general discussion tends to have two viewpoints, GoodDays' being that this is the English Misplaced Pages so it should not use non-english characters or diacrtitics, and that there was a consensus not to include diacritics in North American hockey articles. Djsasso's is that (if I am correct) these diacritics are used in reliable sources discussing the topic.

Now I didn't come to ANI to sort out a content decision (that would be rather stupid of me now wouldn't it?). From the discussions I've observed (a few examples are here, here, here and here). It's pretty evident to me that the two of them interacting has become an issue.

I therefore propose a two-way interaction ban between Djsasso and GoodDay, broadly interpreted (perhaps an admin who's familiar with these can outline the normal provisions. I also forsee the possibility of a first action advantage, ie, one of the two makes an edit knowing that the other user can't revert the edit nor comment on it, so I am also proposing a topic ban on the two from all articles relating to hockey, broadly defined. This would be until such time as an RFC or a mediation case has been held (which I will help set up) which will determine the best way forward regarding diacritics. I do note that GoodDay has stated his intention to stay away from ice hockey articles, so that needs to be taken into consideration. I still think an interaction ban is necessary, a topic ban also necessary until this issue can be sorted out through dispute resolution. That part I am of course happy to organise. (I think this is the part where people say support or oppose....) Steven Zhang 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall agree to an interaction ban & a topic ban from ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow you took it to ANI instead of trying to work it out as reasonable editors. Well I certainly want no part of any mediation you are involved in. You are clearly far to biased in your support of GoodDay when he is clearly using you to bludgeon me. I have repeatedly stated I would walk away from this situation and any problem with him, all I asked for was for GoodDay to stop disparaging people who disagrees with him. I am not sure why that is unacceptable to you to the point where you had to take this to ANI. Certainly not sure what else you want to gain if me walking away from the situation is not enough, other than to attempt to beat me down more. Not to mention topic banning me from hockey essentially bans me from the wiki since hockey articles account for probably 98% of my edits. -DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I said on Djsasso's talk page, a mutual ban from commenting on each other's talk pages would be sufficient. A topic ban from hockey would serve to "protect" your charge from his own mischief by effectively banning his opponent from Misplaced Pages. Draconian, excessive, and frankly, disturbing. Resolute 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As a writter of nine FAs, I believe I have the right to voice my concern here. I'm having some serious issue with GoodDay due to his unhealthy obsession in maintaining what he regards as an "English spoken Misplaced Pages". He is an editor who does not contribute to any article at all. He doesn't write a single piece of paragraph. Nothing. All he does is to search for articles where the English language may be in peril (on his view, of course) and start discussions that lead nowhere. In a conversation I had with Jimbo Wales today, Jimbo opted to deliberately ignore GoodDay and supported my views on the matter. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#John VI is Spanish Juan VI not João VI. Worse: some of GoodDay's remarks reveal an absurd foreign culture prejudice which could easily be regarded as xenophobia (see the link above for a few examples). The problem here is GoodDay's obsession, not his interaction with another user. It's just senseless. --Lecen (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SuggestionI have read the WP:HOCKEY guidelines and Gooddays lack of use of diacritics is the correct one following the guidelines:

• "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics"

I dont think Goodday has edits any bios of players yet - they may play in North America but their bios are not North American. A topic ban for following guidelines? I am relatively new but that just doesnt sound right. Djasso is going by WP:COMMONNAME, again following guidelines so again I cant see a topic ban for that. There is a clear conflict between these two guidelines that needs addressing as much as these editors do. I would personally edit with the more cat-spec guideline, in this case WP:Hockey, but it understandible why neither editor can see why the other side is right. An interaction ban? How about they have to work together to resovlve the conflict of interest with the relevant MOS projects showing no gaming but an ability to work through good faith?Murry1975 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Since when have wikiprojects had carteblance to overule the MOS? Spartaz 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • They don't, but at the same time, there is no Misplaced Pages wide accepted view on how diacritics should be treated. Hockey's guideline is an attempt at compromise. The notation that North America specific articles would not use diacritics was agreed to on the basis that North American sources don't use such. In a few cases, that is actually starting to change, which muddies the waters. Resolute 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Diacritics are very polarizing... as in it turns into a black-and-white matter (pretty much either always use, or never use diactrics). While the present solution is not ideal, it has been the status quo for over five years and has kept the peace. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Djsasso is one of the most active and important hockey editors. It makes no sense to topic ban him over these disputes with GoodDay about diacritics. Nor have I found Djsasso's actions to be inappropriate in any hockey-related (or any other) matter. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all bans, as pure nonsense. DJSasso is an excellent ice hockey editor and banning him from hockey would be a great loss. I agree with Res and Rlendog. GoodDay's very useful too in the subject area (e.g. always pops up on my watchlst keeping List of current NHL captains and alternate captains accurate), and it would be a loss too if he were to step away from the subject area. It would be however nice if GoodDay wasn't always so riled up over dios; if it's such a bother, then it's better to avoid the debates. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always found Djsasso a balanced editor in this eternal dispute over diacritics. On the other hand, GoodDay has shown a certain degree of .. immaturity in his comments. I don't think this needed to go here. Sanctioning both of them would be kind of like when a player in ice hockey knows he's going to get a penalty at the next referee call, he picks a fight with an opponent to fix a penalty for the other team too, in hoping that he won't get 2+2 himself. GoodDay would only be happy if he could bring down a veteran editor like Djsasso with him. Frankly, I don't think either one deserves any sanction, but a reprimand for GoodDay for silly and unnecessary comments about his "opponents" could be motivated. All it takes is for him is stop his silly comments about his perceived opponents. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: - I've proposed here that Djsasso accepts an interaction ban, and to not make changes to diacritics until dispute resolution is pursued to sort this out. If that's accepted I'll close the ANI. Steven Zhang 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how are you going to close it, if all other editors say "oppose"? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's rather easy. If it's sorted out on talk pages, there's no need for ANI. Steven Zhang 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page I have no issue not changing diacritics as I don't generally do it anyways. The article above was an exception because it was a unique situation I felt should be discussed. As for a interaction ban I can certainly stay away from his talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And I assume this applies to him as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't believe this dispute has made it to ANI again. Are we seriously proposing to ban an editor as productive as DJSasso from one of his main areas of activity? Over some squiggly bits in article titles? This is the WP:LAMEest thing ever. Basalisk ⁄_berate 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso has been one of the main proponents to ban me, a productive editor, from my editing over "some squiggly bits in article titles". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why the double standard? Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You were under an indef ban on moving pages with diacritics.
2. You gamed the system, edited in bad faith, and badly spun and ANI report.
3. That resulted in a block and an expansion of the existing ban, whether you like it or not. Some discussion is ongoing on AN at your goading to clarify just where you are limited and where you can either try to regain community trust or play with the rope.
4. GoodDay has his own limitations on editing and is under mentorship. His situation is different than yours.
5. DJSasso's situation is also different than yours.
6. This has run its course with those having commented pointing out a good chunk of it was overreaction.
7. Posting well after this discussion was closed to get a shot in does not help your position in any way.
8. Are we done here, or is there more drama you'd like to post?

- J Greb (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

substantial copyright infringement

At Erich von Däniken the following massive copyvio was re-inserted by . As exact quotes were used from Skeptic magazine, the claim that the section 'avoided direct quotes" fails. See also where some is repeated - again sans attribution on WP for the exact copying.

"trouble, at the age of 19, when he was convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

(just one small example) appeared in the Nov 9, 2004 issue of Skeptic.

By the age of 19 he got into trouble with the law when he was "convicted of stealing money from an innkeeper and from a camp where he worked as a youth leader"

is the version repeatedly inserted into the BLP. More evidence of copyvio really needed? The violating editor's response is which means to me that he does not understand exactly how seriously Misplaced Pages takes plagiarism and copyright violations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit of work - but Playboy interview is at . The amount of direct copying is enormous. Collect (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to downplay your legitimate copyright concerns, but please educate yourself with regards to verifiability. You have stated that "the Channel 4 ref is not online and can not be confirmed as backing the claims made," that "The "early life" section appears to have a great deal of negative information sourced to a single Playboy interview - which seems unavailable. This should be completely removed until solid evidence that all of it is properly soured to Playboy." Things are not verifiable when you verify them, but rather when a reliable source is provided. If you have evidence of an individual falsifying sources, then you could make a stronger argument, but that a source is not online, or that you don't have access to a source does not make it unsourced. Please be more careful. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted I found a copy of rhe Playboy interview - as an image file (pdf) and not through my usual searches. The text in the article is lifted wholesale from that article as far as I can determine. Plagiarism != "unsourced." "Direct copying" = "plagiarism" however. I do not accuse anyone of "falsifying" Playboy here - I make the observatuion that they lifted wholesale from it in violation of copyright law. Do you note the difference? Collect (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's now. In the past, you said that the interview was unavailable, and thus the information sourced to it should be removed. You said that because the Channel 4 ref was not online, it can not be confirmed. This is problematic, and needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, Hipo is correct - sources do not have to be available online. (And the day Wikipeida decides to disallow offline sources is the day I quit editing...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Collect, just summarize the information from the interview. Replace any direct quotes with briefs summaries of the naked facts, put the direct quotes inside {{cquote|blah blah blah|author}}, or surround the quotes with "Playboy said" or "Von Daniken said". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use "cquote", those curly quote marks are just too damn cute; besides, the template is not meant for use in an article's body, it's meant for pullquotes (as it says in the template doc). Use "bquote", please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue raised here is not one of availability - I found a PDF (which was a copyvio AFAICT on the site where it was) and noted that a huge amoount of the article is lifted directly from Playboy - as plagiarism on the first water. My initial problem had indeed been verifying the claims made - when I found the claims made used the exact same language as the copyright article, then I posted here. Is this clear, I trust? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the first part - your belief that things are not verifiable until you have verified them. This needs to change. The second part, the copyvio? It's not ripe for administrative attention. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When a long series of claims is made about a living person, and the claims are contentious (that is, alleging felonies etc.), prudence and WP:BLP requires we be cautious. I fear that blind acceptance of contentious claims has been a major problem on BLPs for a long time, and suggesting "just keep the claims even if they seem very contentious" or the like is not found in WP:BLP. I fear you do not seem to grasp the reason why WP:BLP is written as it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP requires that all claims be reliably sourced. It does not require that you, Collect, read the source, or that the source be online, or easy to access. Go to the library. That you don't understand this, still, is very problematic. That your reflexive response to me educating you about what Verifiable means is to cry BLP is even more problematic. Perhaps you need to be directed to work in different areas for a time, so you can understand our sourcing policies. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential BLP violations combined with copyright violations are both factors that run the risk of damaging wikipedia. Those factors are more important than any alleged "reliability" of sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you find unambiguous copyvio, you can either remove it and leave a note on the talk page, or tag and list it as described at WP:CP. There is no obligation to rewrite in in properly paraphrased form, though it's always nice if you do it that way too. Hipocrite is right about there being no requirement for you personally to be able to verify a source, as long as someone would be able to (or you could ask at our own library. As an exception though, if the same editor added three large blocks of text and you've found two are flat-out copyvio, it becomes reasonable to assume the third is as well. List it at CP if you're not sure. No action is required at this board. Franamax (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensive content on user and talk pages

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

• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)

This user appears to have content on their user page which is there for no reason other than to offend. In particular, the image is of "Gallows on Auschwitz" with the caption "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" The obvious and disruptive implication here is that Jewish politicians should be hung first. This image is not being used on any pages other than this user page. In my opinion, this definitely violates user page policy.

On their talk page, their "gone fishing" notice contains an image of Cocaine and their signature is "2 lines of K". I don't know if the promotion of a drug which is illegal in most countries is against policy, and I have no idea whether this is intended to offend or not, but I thought it should be brought up as well. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping to me, given the thread you created hours ago at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#One_Night_In_Hackney. Also, while you did notify ONIH of that thread, you did not mention this thread after its creation, which is required. I would add that the complaint you are making might be a bit nit-picky; because a picture depicts something in Auschwitz does not automatically mean it is anti-Jewish, nor does a picture of cocaine necessarily promote drug use. I am not saying these things are in good taste, and indeed both might be against policy, but neither stands out as an "OMG, let's get immediate admin action" item...at least to me.  Frank  |  talk  21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not leap to any conclusions about that. Someone came into my office and needed my attention just after I posted this before I had the change to post a notification. I have now done so. As to whether this is "forum shopping" you are welcome to hold whatever opinion about that you like, but this is a different issue and as far as I know this is the correct forum to report the issue. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "leap to any conclusions" - that's how it was at the time. As for forum shopping, well, I think WP:QUACK can be applied here. You failed to get any action on your WQA thread and then opened this one. Note that I'm not making any judgment whatsoever on the user page or user talk page; I'm commenting on the advisability of this request for action in light of the previous one...against the same user. And I use the word against deliberately here, because that's how it appears to me.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that having has a separate problem with an editor is a good reason not to report a user page problem that I just discovered. I hadn't really looked at the user page until just now. Again, have whatever opinion you like. It's just not relevant to the issue I brought up. If you have no opinion on that issue, there's not really any pressing need on your part to say any more... or is there? Yworo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One's motivation in bringing up an issue at WP:ANI (or indeed any noticeboard requesting punitive action) is directly relevant to the issue. Your protestation regarding my interpretation is a part of the conversation; I find it a little problematic given the timing of the edits. You didn't bother to look at the user's talk page - even though you had posted a notice about the WQA thread - until after you got two answers from two different editors that disagreed with your WQA post? Sure, it's possible, and maybe even exactly how it happened...but, that's not how it looks. As for whether there is a "pressing need" for me to say more, well, the answer is "of course there is no need", but as I chose to initially respond, it's reasonable to continue to engage in the conversation.  Frank  |  talk  22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions again. Of course I looked at the user's talk page. I said I hadn't really looked at the user's user page, there's a difference. And by "really looked", I mean I hadn't looked to see what the image was of until now. I looked to see if there was anything relevant to know about them, there wasn't. I'd just looked deeper into what was there is all. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And the cocaine picture, about which you also complained, is on which page?  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page. I didn't find it sufficiently offensive on its own to report, but thought it should be brought up along with the other more offensive issue, as I said in my initial post, I didn't know if it was against any policy or not. I think I was pretty clear about that. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Grow up. "In a hung parliament, who do we hang first?" is a well-used phrase totally unrelated to anti-semitism. If it hadn't been pointed out, I wouldn't have known it was a gallows at Auschwitz, but so what if it is? All gallows are repulsive. This is a joke. It's actually quite a funny one and one which is well-appreciated in the UK where, readers may recall, we were landed with a hung parliament at the last election. Thus, not just funny, but topical and satirical. (FYI, the page in its present form was created on 7 May 2010, the day after the election which produced a "hung parliament".) I notice the complainant is American, so perhaps, to be charitable, it's just that our British humour is not understood there, but I also suspect that this is more to do with a personal vendetta than a genuine affront. It really does smack of WP:FORUMSHOPping to me. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm American and I don't get the joke. While I'm not Jewish myself, I have good reason to be sensitive to such "jokes", most of my in-laws family died at Auschwitz. I don't appreciate the lightness of the attitude here, being told to "grow up" or being told my concern is insincere. You people are admins? Hell, if you can be admins, I'm more than qualified myself. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFA is the place to test out that assertion.  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now y'all have fun patting yourselves on the back and laughing at crypto-anti-semitism. I won't be watching this page anymore. If any admin who can see the what the issue is here and has something sensible to say about it, ping me on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cavalierly dropping charges of antisemitism is something that will boomerang on you if you aren't damn sure of what you are claiming. Seriously, go find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And, indeed, three different editors have already said several sensible things to you right here where you raised your concern. It is highly unlikely you'll get any responses to this thread on your talk page; that's not how WP:ANI (or most of Misplaced Pages) works.  Frank  |  talk  23:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at this case, I'd say that ONIH demonstrated execrable judgement and tremendous insensitivity, but absent any evidence to suggest intent I don't think there's a reason to jump to the conclusion that his user page is antisemitic. It is, however, quite offensive.

Hung parliament is a term often used in UK politics as a synonym for a minority government: a government where no political party holds a majority of the votes (seats) in parliament. (U.S. editors may be unfamiliar with this concept or situation and the associated terminology, as U.S. politics have been dominated for many years by just two parties; the party with the most seats will necessarily also have a majority of the seats.) 'Hung' is used in this context to mean 'stuck' or 'snagged' (like a hung jury), not executed with a noose and gallows—but of course the word's more colorful connotations proved irresistible to the sadly predictable wags who draw editorial cartoons (, , , , ) and write 'witty' columns. The quote on ONIH's user page almost certainly would have been drawn from the writing of a humor columnist, blogger, or late-night television monologue.

As far as I can tell, ONIH thought that the quote was a clever witticism – and I'm willing to admit that it's mildly chuckle-inducing the first time, though it tires quickly if it's the only joke on the page – and just went out to get the first (or best, or clearest) free image of a gallows he could find on Misplaced Pages to decorate the text—without regard for the image's source. That said, given that the name Auschwitz is right in the image's title, I'm not willing to assume that he didn't know where the image was taken. Perhaps he's guilty of egregious cultural or historical illiteracy and wasn't aware of the significance, but it seems more likely to me that he was just resoundingly insensitive. It's not appropriate to use Holocaust-related photographs to decorate one's editorial cartoons, and that shouldn't need to be said. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I doubt hugely that the image has anything to do with anti-semitism or the holocaust. From what I undertand, OneNightInHackney is from the UK. The UK currently has a hung parliament (which is unusual in recent UK politics).

Also, if you have concerns about this kind of thing, it is usually best to bring it up on the user's talk page before coming here. --RA (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - 2linesofK - the K is not cocaine , its special K Ketamine. Youreallycan (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an unfortunate choice of illustrations. There are several safe ones at Gallows. Regarding the "hung Parliament", the approximate equivalent situation in the USA is called "gridlock". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The images in our article Gallows all seem to have people hanging on them. Or it's not immediately clear what they are - one looks like industrial machinery. If you go to Commons and search for "gallows", you get these four images . Which one are you going to pick to illustrate an acerbic comment on the best option for the miscegenation that is the current UK government? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is my personal favorite. It's also tragic, as Lincoln's conspirators had a fatal miscommunication with their attorney. When he told them he would try to get them a suspended sentence, they thought it was good news. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to disagree. Can't help but feel that this one is a more accurate metaphor for men in suits faffing over the death of a nation. Basalisk ⁄_berate 00:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked that question to One Night In Hackney here. Von Restorff (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. If I interpret this correctly One Night In Hackney says fascism is a bad thing.

So what exactly is offensive here? The gallows? Picture of cocaine? A username? Mo ainm~Talk 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To me? Nothing TBQH. But incorrect accusations of anti-Semitism can be seen as a personal attack. Von Restorff (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What does a dispute at Nicole Kidman, have to do with ONIH's userpage 'image' & talkpage 'image'? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you guys mind if I close this? If we need to re-open it that is always possible. Von Restorff (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold nonadmin closure. This was stupid. I will ask Yworo to apologize to One Night In Hackney. Von Restorff (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Carli Lloyd

Some unknown user keeps putting their personal opinions of the player under her biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it these contributions regarding the penalty kick that you are referring to? (And possibly thse contributions)? --RA (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like 68.45.234.82 is edit warring here (only looked at edits since Jan 1):

• 14:01, 4 January 2012
• 17:13, 3 January 2012
• 03:45, 5 January 2012
• 04:14, 5 January 2012
• 04:16, 5 January 2012
• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 04:29, 5 January 2012
• 20:25, 5 January 2012

Then similarly before hopping to 71.169.87.36 here:

• 04:25, 5 January 2012
• 12:26, 7 January 2012
• 01:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012
• 17:18, 9 January 2012

--RA (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned both accounts. --RA (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected yesterday and has been quiet since.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

IP harrasment and trolling

An anon editor (whom is/was known as the Gundagai anon/editor) using the IP range of 144.13x.xxx.xx has been harrasing (WP:OUTING) and trolling on the Gundagai talk page. The anon has had an arbitration case and was banned from using Misplaced Pages for 12 months however this was breached since the anon returned within the ban time frame and the fact the ArbCom case also stated the anon was required to edit under one account. Something needs to be done as this has gotten back out of control like it did back in 2006. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that each count of ban evasion resets the ban, Bidgee. If he's been continuously editing since then or otherwise violating sanctions, he can be blocked under the relevant ArbCom decisions. —Jeremy v^_^v 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page for a few days would stifle it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance at some sort of rangeblock? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not from me; I've never figured out how they work. Idea sounds good, however. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be a large range (a /15?) belonging to a large ISP in a major English-speaking country, so the collateral damage would probably be considerable. Given the very localized form of the disruption, it would probably be more efficient to just permanently semiprotect both the article and talkpage. Another alternative would be an edit filter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it be possible to set the edit filter to just flag edits from a particular range? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All edits are from eight /24 ranges, and it looks like all recent contributions from those ranges (since early 2011) have been to the same group of articles and related content in other pages, so blocking should be possible if the disruption continues. Peter E. James (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon has returned under 144.138.240.227 (talk · contribs) and has also breached WP:OUTING again. Bidgee (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm blocking every IP that I see from this person (two of them have bothered me on my talk page, besides doing this), but it's getting rather tiresome; I like the edit filter idea even better than the rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment

I would like someone to help me with harrassment I am receiving from other editors. User:One Night In Hackney appears to be using every conceiveable incivility and breach of Misplaced Pages rules to stop me editing. The most serious is a continual allegation that I am a sockpuppet of another user, to the point where he is now referring to me in posts as The Thunderer. He is currently engaged in doing all he can to destroy my credibility as an editor at ] and at ] and on my talk page ]. He appears to be working in support of, if not along with User:Mo ainm who is a known sockpuppet of <redacted> a much blocked editor who claims to be on a "fresh start" but has returned to the scene of his past misdemenanours to get involved in more rows, in my case culminating in a complaint against me when I made a mistake editing on a page which has a 1RR retsriction. The complaint is here ]. It doesn't matter what answers, complaints, or reasoning I give, the harrassment and incivility is growing by the day. By my track record it can be seen that I have had problems since I joined with people saying I am a sockpuppet. It all seems to be linked to Ulster Defence Regiment, a page which has been fought over for so long it's unbelieveable, although I didn't know that when I started to edit. As a result of my inexperience I received a 24 hour block so I went away and edited other articles and my track record on that speaks for itself. I have interfaced successfully with other users, created a good article and brought several more up at least one class - all with no problems, proper discussion and following the rules of Misplaced Pages as I learn them. I moved to edit the Ulster Defence Regiment page again and the trouble started again. I am hoping to stamp this out because no editor should have to go through what I'm going through at the moment and I ask for help from anyone who cares to give it. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He was warned on his talk page about WP:OUTING with a link to the relevant discussion here. But he obviously wants to continue his outing attempts. And here are another couple of links which might be of interest Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive and User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13#Assistance Requested Mo ainm~Talk 12:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As if by magic one of the protagonists appears. My account is being scrutinised in violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING

to prevent me making any progress. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as well ANI is on my watch list as you didn't notify me about this thread and don't think you notified Hackney either. Mo ainm~Talk 12:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify anyone about harrassment. I could, and still might, do it privately. Why don't you just leave me alone? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you report a user at this board, you MUST notify them. No exceptions. This is an open venue - expect comments. Also, this is forum shopping - you're just rehashing what you've said at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SonofSetanta. No administrative action is warranted here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've come here for help. I'm not an experienced editor, although these people are suggesting I am. I need help to stop the harrassment. May I ask: how is dismissing the complaint seen as useful to me? Have you no follow up advice? Where do I go next, who do I talk to or am I expected to just endure this in contravention of everything I've read on the help pages? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Except to block him for outing and/or sockpuppetry, since he's still denying being a sock (even going so far as to claim he was cleared) in order to avoid sanctions. Mo ainm~Talk 12:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTING does go both ways :-) WP:CLEANSTART is also very clear in its usage. I could see lots of blocks, unless I implemented a whack of WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

May I refer you to . I had missed the significance, but SonofSetanta has also been pointed here. If a user has retired an account and started another because of outing issues related to the old account, then continually drawing attention to it is outing and blockable, and I suggest SonofSetanta shuts up before I do think of some administrative action. If his edits weren't problematic, he wouldn't be at AE to start with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to take administrative action against me, I came here for help? My record stands as that of a good editor who has contributed a decent amount. I only had a problem at the very start and now again on the same article. I'm finding it all very sinister. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTING only applies to personal information, not to account names unless those account names refer to personal information. Mo ainm~Talk 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, let me say it this way: TheThunderer account is not blocked, and has not edited since 2008. Let's assume for 2 seconds that you're right, and Setanta is TheThunderer ... it would appear that they too did a WP:CLEANSTART. By trying to place a link between those two accounts, you'd be hypothetically just as guilty as they are by linking 2 accounts. WP:SOCK/WP:EVADE does not apply in this case (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've been round this loop a good few times before. If the old account does not contain, or is not associated with, personal information, it's not outing, but it is incivil to repeatedly refer to the person by the old account name. I would think that applies here - the old account isn't blocked, and isn't editing, and hasn't edited for 3 years, so it makes no difference whether this is the same person. They aren't breaking any rules, and users should just let the horse die. Mo ainm however had a personal information issue with their previous account - now that SonofSetanta has been appraised of this, he should not again repeat the information onwiki. So slightly different, but everyone should let this previous username issue drop RIGHT NOW and focus on current editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has been verified by a checkuser/oversighter, my clean start is legit. "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny" - SonofSetanta has done all those things - returned to the old topic area, returned to the same edit warring, returned to the same problematic editing - all while trying to hide behind an "I'm new and being harassed" mask, even repeatedly denying being a sock while facing arbitration enforcement. So I ask you, do you consider covering up a lengthy block log for poor behaviour in the Troubles related area while facing a new block for poor behaviour in the Troubles related area to be a legitimate use of socks? Rest assured should the identity of my previous account be relevant to any such proceedings, I will be happy to reveal it to the people concerned. Mo ainm~Talk 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But you HAVE returned to areas of conflict. Your old block log showed multiple incidences of problems on sites concerning the Irish Troubles and, if I'm not wrong, the Ulster Defence Regiment article was one of them. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a common misapprehension that returning to previous areas is forbidden. In fact, all CLEANSTART warns is that you're likely to be recognised, and people may see it as evading scrutiny. In this case, unless there are intervening accounts, there's such a huge time gap that I doubt it's significant. Just focus on his current problematic evidence - sufficient unto the day is the weevil thereof. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (Note, that remark was addressed to Mo ainm)

What problematic editing? I made a mistake when editing. I have not been a problem. The problem is that I have not been shown good faith. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So here's an idea: everybody cease and desist from referring to anyone by what may or may not be their old account. SonofSetanta is violating WP:OUTING - they're duly warned to knock it off. However, retaliatory and continual referring to Setanta as someone they may or may not have been is uncivil and disruptive. Move along, get along, or ya won't be here forlong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you've written. I understand it and will abide by it. Would you be kind enough to place a warning on Moaimh and One Night in Hackney's page. I would assert that is where the incivility is coming from. Can you also advise me please what I should do if the incivility and harrasment continues? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if I am the only one listening to you. May I ask you to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mo_ainm and see his last two contributions (at time of writing) both of which contain incivility towards me. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to edit articles in that area - and make statements like this, you're going to get strong reactions. The last two edits of Mo ainm were not incivil, particularly given everything that has gone on, and your post on his talkpage was probably unwise. In any case, he is entitled to revert it. Your best bet is just to keep talking on the article talkpage, where at least it seems to be largely constructive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not perfect but the comment about the Irish was made in good faith and not intended to be an insult to anyone of that nationality. I am happy to confirm that now and on the talk page of the article. Apart from that I just want the incivility and harrassment to stop and for other editors to behave in the same way as those on the Military Project page i.e, makes edits within the rules and then discuss if there is a disagreement. None of this "You can't do that" type of thing I've been facing. Some good faith extended in my direction would really make me feel welcome. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both admins who offered advice and assistance. It is very much appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet is not to edit in that area - it is one of the most POV driven biased sectors on the whole project with groups of tag team editors and nationalists everywhere - all the articles are worthless to readers, and as far as NPOV goes they're a joke. I had to laugh when you reminded me of User:Big Dunc - that account was used as a blind revert account and left with trojan email goodbyes. Youreallycan (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting. While I take on board what you say I can't agree that any editor should stay away from an article just because some people want to keep their POV on it. I have noticed sinister goings on however and your post highlights some of them. What can be done about it however? Is there an avenue of investigation we can ask admins to follow to try and make conditions suitable for all editors on the site to post, without harrassment, on every article? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That sector is so bad your best chance is to - walk away and never look back. Youreallycan (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No way would I ever let someone stop me editing an article. This may not be an appropriate time to enter into the politics of the site but what you've said is a shocking indightment of misuse of policy if editors are able to get away with imposing a POV on an organisation as big as Misplaced Pages. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with someone stopping you ... it's just that some areas of Misplaced Pages are just massive cesspools of neverending gloom and decay. In my real life, I wrote a series of articles on a topic quite similar to the one you're voluntarily editing in ... I received death threats afterwards. No way will I leap into those areas, except to perform admin tasks where needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of what you're talking about. I hope I'm not attaching too much gravitas to your admin position here but isn't that really what it's about? Aren't you able to spot anyone pushing a POV and stop them? I do agree with Youreallycan (talk) that there seems to be "something rotten in the State of Denmark" and I'm very keen to do anything I can to help. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is well beyond something one admin can fix. This has been ongoing since 2007. There are too many people and groups with deep-seated opinions on this matter for it to be as simple as "spot(ting) anyone pushing a POV." I admire your tenacity, but diving into articles about The Troubles is asking for stress & grief. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages must have a solution for this then if it's been going for so long. I mean presumably some interest groups present a similar problem i.e. those on Palestine? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Same problems there, the Balkans, etc. As long as it's the "encylopedia anyone can edit", we'll have issues. Just like a nurse in a burn unit eventually becomes "burnt out", these areas of Misplaced Pages are the cause of a lot of burnout. Sanity is more important (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel, Scientology and others have all been perennial problems. Check out Misplaced Pages:General sanctions for other examples. These subjects ignite passions and drive people who believe strongly in them to abuse Misplaced Pages to push their own agendas. Aside from those who break specific sanctions, it's extremely difficult to keep those subjects stable. There's no easy answer here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, if there's concerns about socking on both sides, then run CU. It least it would remove any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(a)no-one will run a usercheck on a fishing expedition−

(b)there are no socks. There are two alleged instances of an individual retiring one account and starting another. Since this is entirely within the rules, refer to (a)

(c) checkuser is not magic pixie dust. If a user last edited three years ago, there's nothing to compare to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, based on WP:SCRUTINY the creation of a clean account is a problem if it is used to conceal prior bad acts to prevent other editors from detecting a pattern of disruptive editing. In this case Setanta and Mo would probably both be guilty of violating it, I think. Setanta has been more obvious about it by going right back to the same article and denying any prior involvement on Misplaced Pages, while Mo seems to have focused on edit-warring over the nationality of various well-known people i.e. fighting over whether x famous person is Irish or British with lots of fluff edits between these periods of edit-warring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When is a block not a block

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

When appently the block is broken.

Case in point is IP 87.82.212.210 which is a school IP address which, according to the block log is blocked for 1 year starting from the 4th of January, however it seems this is not the case as according to the contributions, they are editing logged out past that date, the most recent being about 30 minutes ago (from the time of this message). Can this be looked into please. - Rich(MTCD) 13:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Today is now 1 year and 7 days after the start of the block. The block was placed in 2011, not 2012. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh am I an idiot... DERP - Rich(MTCD) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary...

You're not an idiot. In fact, 87.82.212.210 (talk · contribs) continues to be vandalism-only, and needs to be put on ice for at least another semester. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant comment for blocking the IP as well I must add :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

personal attacks

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

There are personal attacks being made towards me in the following edit summaries could the summary text be cleaned up, and perhaps the editor warned? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all: notify Darkwarriorblake. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Von Restorff (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks in the first page of edits, and certainly nothing that meets the requirements under WP:REVDEL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification  Done Calabe1992 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

the attack is in the edit summary text itself, not the edit. I am not asking for the revisions to be deleted, just the summary text cleaned up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see personal attacks in there, discussion seems ready to be closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Short history. Darkwarriorblake created an article, I nominated it for deletion as it was a movie in pre-production, that had not commenced filming, and so did not meet WP:NFF. The article ultimately survived the AFD. I have had no other interaction other than the AFD discussion. Darkwarriorblake has now posted some additional edits to the article with the following summaries.

• I'd just like to thank Gaijin42 for wasting so much of my time but never bothering to take part in the discussion that threatened to remove this for the sake of two weeks.
• Again, thanks Gaijin

Those are what I am asking to be cleaned up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They're a bit snippy, but they don't rise to the level of needing to be hidden. The two of you had a dispute about whether to delete an article, you lost, and he considered your deletion attempt to be frivolous and a waste of other editors' time. Better you should address that factor than to gripe about someone's mildly snippy edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Concurring that there's nothing here rising to the level of requiring admin time to remove an edit summary - there's nothing libelous or defamatory. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like reading that, but the editsummary will not be deleted. I will ask Darkwarriorblake right here and now to be nice, and I will ask you to be nice to him. C'mon guys, lets be friends. Von Restorff (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

About the one person with 3 users

I saw that the message I wrote to you was gone and I don't know if you intend to do something about it. I wrote to you that with his 3 users, he destroys and vandalize some values. The blocking has ended, and he begins to do the same things that he done before and I feel he would do the same mistakes that he repeats them. I don't come to you with any complaints but I came to you for help. --Friends147 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This presumably relates to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#ONE PERSON with 3 USERS. Deor (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for page protection is the best place - we can't indef IP's typically (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange block on ScottyBerg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not an AN/I issue. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ScottyBerg has been blocked by User:Alison for being a sockpuppet of some account I've never heard of. What's weird is that the only sock puppet report I can find is from September of last year. Check user was declined by HelloAnnoying who closed it as a bad faith report. Does anyone know what's going on? I started a discussion on Alison's talk page but she appears to have gone offline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really something AN/I can help with. You'll need to take it up with Alison, or ArbCom if Alison's given you all the information she's willing to give you. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Alison is a Checkuser. I suspect that there is more than just the bad-faith report from last year involved. Collect (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll get more information on Misplaced Pages Review, where decisions like this are typically made. Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should close this section again - since it was a CU block, Scotty has to appeal it to ArbCom, not the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree - User:WMC reopened it without a comment. Youreallycan (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong as always, OTRR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging campaign

I have encountered an anon user with a Brazilian IP range who seems to be on a fly-by tagging campaign. Asked as help desk about this, but no response yet, as many of these tags are incorrect, or questionable: e.g. "citation needed" against existing refs and in lead/infobox when cited later in main body, also using "verification needed" and "quotation requested" against refs that are reliable and legit. Seems not to want to use edit summaries, and moving fast from article to article. Several of their tags have been reverted by myself and other editors where they seem misplaced, but there are a lot to keep up with. In several cases, they have returned to the same articles and added more tags. Unusual, and am not sure what to do. Seems almost bot like, and with the change of IP (dynamic?) I'm not sure if they'll respond to anyone on talk pages. User has been templated in some cases, I have not left a notification of this ANI yet, but if someone feels they need leaving a note, advise me where. Notified the latest IP used.

• Special:Contributions/187.15.79.196
• Special:Contributions/187.15.19.24
• Special:Contributions/187.15.33.12

Ma®©usBritish  23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that such drive-by tagging is disruptive. However, someone who understands range blocks (not me, obviously) should have a look. Blocking any one of these IPs is not going to do anything. Yes, do leave notifications on those three talk pages please. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to add on looking at the contributions of these ips that every single one of the edits by them is on pages I have recently edited myself. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Gaius_Octavius_Princeps to those provided by Marcus above. I find this...Very.Strange. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? You suspect some kind of stalkish sock behaviour? Coincidence like that would be pretty rare. Hopefully someone will figure it out, though if you recall any Brazilian editor who may have got on your bad side of in the past an SPI check might find out more. Ma®©usBritish  23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

PGPirate

PGPirate (talk · contribs)

User appears to be going on an AFD tear, taking aim at a long list of college fight songs. Perhaps this is a reaction to this , but this looks like a vendetta. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I left a message on his talk page a few minutes ago asking him to stop as this is incredibly WP:POINTY. I'm tempted to speedy close all those nominations... Salvio 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I've blocked PGPirate for 24 hours for his continued disruptive editing after the warnings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. Salvio 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, I count 83 AfDs nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 11 within a period of one hour. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I happened upon this at Boola Boola--not notable? I beg your pardon, kind sir. Harumph. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a somewhat unrelated note, how is PGPirate a reviewer? The sheer number of warnings going back months on their talk page would concern me abut the editor's WP:COMPETENCE. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that userright is pretty much useless, considering admins cannot use pending changes any longer... So I'd say there's really no need to remove it... Salvio 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, good block. I'd suggest speedy closing the nominations. Judging that he nominated at least one GA for deletion, Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, the nominator did not concern himself with WP:BEFORE. Disavian (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Uggh, this editor didn't even glance a look at the reflist for On, Wisconsin! (aka the state song of Wisconsin also), which has plenty of sources. Can we have a speedy close on those that are pretty darned obvious speedy keeps? Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. User may have slight conflict of interest over East Carolina....76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Hang on before you close all of them, some do have merit though and there is a number of issues with lyrics on a number of them (see WP:NOTLYRICS) and in some cases they could be copyvio issues. Mtking 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the AFDs were apparently filed with malice, they should all be speedily kept. No vandal should be able to force an agenda like this. --Esprqii (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, then objective parties can renominate any appropriate articles. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy close them: they were not done in good faith, whatever the quality of the article or the notability of the topic. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this user have any relation to Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs)? The mass-nomination caught my eye. HurricaneFan25 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, based on interests. PGPirate has also been here since 2005. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Update: 78 of the articles nominated in bad faith have been speedily kept, while five were kept open due to delete !votes (Across the Field, Up With Montana, The Bells Must Ring, Buckeye Battle Cry, and Dear Old Nebraska U). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE is not policy or a guideline. The rationale for blocking him was his failure to follow this suggestion. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've should have refreshed the ANI page before closing some of the Afd's with delete votes. I think it's best to close of all of them for now. --Lenticel 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering he posted that article about the ECU fight song SIX YEARS AGO, and somebody got the bright idea to nominate it for deletion now, I could see why he'd be miffed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Across the Field and The Bells Must Ring are still open at AfD. They should be speedily closed like all the others. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. How is the Rutgers fight song notable, other than being connected with Rutgers? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Done.--Lenticel 03:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Request is it possible to shift all those speedy keeps off the AfD page for 11 January: they make the page a bit awkward. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of collapsable boxes for the afd would do. The speedy keeps would be hidden from view but can still be accessed from the Jan 11 page if necessary.--Lenticel 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron on AfD

I have put an article up for deletion on the basis that it essentially duplicated material that was covered elsewhere already or could be covered elsewhere easily and at first there were several delete votes citing that basis. Then User:Northamerica1000 gave a keep vote basically suggesting, based off the fact the material wasn't present in the two most general articles on the subject, that somehow I was making up that it was covered elsewhere, while mentioning a list of sources even though my argument did not challenge the article on notability. The creator of the article reiterates that editor's argument and so I note that my objection was not about notability, specifically stating where the information was already included or could easily be included.

After several more editors pushed for a keep vote citing Northamerica I noticed they are all in the "Article Rescue Squadron" and that the article had been tagged for "rescue" from deletion by Northamerica. While the group is ostensibly about improving articles so they will be kept, their only real contributions in the AfD have been to make keep votes, with some of them doing nothing more than citing the previous argument for why the article should be kept and emphasizing the keep argument's "compelling" nature. Noticing that this was a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS I added a tag to clarify this was not about a majority vote. User:Dream Focus removed the tag claiming this was not canvassing and accusing me of making a "bad faith assumption" about the rescue tag.

Despite attempting to discuss it at Northamerica's talk page the editor is clearly not interested. He insists his actions do not amount to canvassing, claiming he only notified four users who had edited the page before (not addressing the impact of the rescue tag itself), and throws out WP:CENSORED for no apparent reason. Northamerica then accuses me of complaining and disagreeing with Misplaced Pages's policy on notability, even though I had repeatedly said my reason for the AfD had nothing to do with notability.

The broader issue is that this group seems to serve more as a vehicle for inclusionists to canvass for keeping articles nominated for deletion than as a means to legitimately improve Misplaced Pages in general. Evidence for this can be found in the language on using the rescue tag calling on members to "comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen" as a nice way of telling members of the group to vote keep on any article with the tag. As noted on Northamerica's talk page, the very idea of tagging an article for "rescue" after it is nominated for deletion violates WP:CANVASS as it "preselects recipients according to their established opinions" as opposed to a neutral notification of all interested editors.

Dream Focus is particularly blunt about this inclusionist agenda-warrior behavior. That user's page reads at times like some sort of inclusionist manifesto with a long list of "successes" and at other times like an explicit instruction manual on how to game the system in favor of the inclusionist position. The userpage has been recognized as such a blatantly abrasive soapbox that it has been nominated for deletion twice, though naturally the members of the Article Rescue Squadron "save the day" each time.

My thought is that the only feasible way to stop this kind of activity without getting rid of the group altogether is to explicitly restrict anyone in this group from getting involved in AfDs and limiting them explicitly by policy to only editing the article itself when it is nominated for deletion. Otherwise, it appears they will continue to be a force of disruption in pursuit of their higher purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards