Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 29 February 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

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that following his comments above, User:Stefanomione continues to depopulate Category:Freudian psychology. The affected articles are essays, not books, and appear to have been correctly categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some time before you posted this comment, I created Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud ... you caught me in a work of progress .... Stefanomione (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Stefanomione's primary editing contribution is the creation of categories. While this is an important part of Misplaced Pages, I've also noticed an unacceptably large number of those categories are inappropriate and subsequently brought to CfD (look at his talk page!). I would recommend some kind of community sanction where any new category this user proposes must be discussed first, perhaps at WP:CATP. This would cut down on the massive strain this user puts on other editors trying to clean up after him. After all, it's much easier to create a category than to delete it, so this minor filter would dramatically improve the quality of the categories he produces. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • A few hours ago, while depopulating Category:Freudian psychology,I created Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis and Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud. This made the category less confusing (it contained/contains Books/Essays/Terminology/Institutions/People/Criticists/Criticism/Related topics/ ... The Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud - which I created earlier today and is not tagged as CfD - helps, I think, to bring a rapid access to theories really conceived by Sigmund Freud himself. Stefanomione (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
  And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, you just caught me in a work of progress: around the same time, I created and populated Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis, Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud and Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud, none of them CfD. Misplaced Pages is not "too much work", it is a work in progress. Stefanomione (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is the problem in a nutshell. You were in the process of creating a structure, and even when you knew that the existence of the whole structure was being challenged, you went ahead anyway. That's plain disruptive. The proper way to behave is that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but when that boldness is challenged we stop and discuss. You simply don't seem able to grasp this, which is why I support blocking you from category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. I would like to keep the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Why do you need automated tools to have discussions with other editors on talk pages? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Those statistics are kinda horrifying. Stefanominome has created no less than 180 categories which have been deleted, and doesn't see a problem? Another 210 renamed, and again no problem? Really?
  This is a contemptuous attitude to the time of other editors, who would also like to be doing other things on Misplaced Pages rather than tidying up after this editor. A total of 390 categories changed at CFD. Let's assume that there was some grouping of the CFDs, and generously assume an average of 5 categories per discussion; that means that Stefanomione's categories have been the subject of 80 CFD discussions. Each one of those discussions involves a lot of work by the nominator (a group nom is a lot of work to set up), more contributions from editors who participate in the CFDs, and then a closing admin has pass the instructions to the CFD bot. After that, watchlists get beaten up as every individual article is edited by the bot.
  Enough already. Time to require this editor to gain consensus before category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stefanomione's numbers suggest a 15% error rate, not 6.1%. But more importantly, the other 85% are not pristine. There are many places he has created categories where I have looked at them and thought, "Wow, this is going to be a nightmare to sort out," and just haven't had the time to nominate them. So just because we haven't put more than400 categories of his through the discussion process is no reason to believe the other categories are safe from problems. Now, here's the good news: When given direction, Stefanomione is more than happy to do the work himself. So once the creation ban is in place, it seems possible to imagine that he would be very helpful dealing with the issues that he has created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 85 % not pristine ? Could you give some examples ? What I see: the 1800 categories I created in 2005-2010 still expanded and completed with subcategories - Only four of them put on CfRenaming in 2011-2012, despite the incredible crowd intelligence of the wikipedians. Anyway, it's true, Mike: I'm eager to do the reparation-work myself. Stefanomione (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A first step might be ones with the word "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books, etc.) in the name. That's all a huge mess. And more than a few violate MoS guidelines for naming. British word usage on television season vs series vs. show for example has a longtime consensus. I look at just how much there is and just haven't dealt with it yet just due to the tagging alone. - jc37 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • What Jc37 said. My name appears more than 100 times on your talk page due to automatic notifications of discussions, almost all of which have resulted in changes. I'm trying to get you to change your behavior before it appears 100 more times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (ec) As Mike knows, we've already spent quite a bit of time at CfD delineating the media/creative works confusion, generally with unanimous support. I thought we had the 'use of the "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books"' problem cleared up. It sounds to me like Jc37 is also criticizing what the categories have become, post-Stefanomione, rather than what he created? Jc, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • What Mike S. said, exactly. It's not about what they've become after. See what we have in the category system is (as noted on my talk page) a "commonality of consistency based upon prior consensus". And a category's name, even more than how it is subcatted into an existing tree of cats, is of profound importance when trying to figure out what we're looking at. Categories are all about navigation. and the names should be clear so that any editor (tm) should feel confident placing the category on a specific page. And to further that navigation, we have multifaceted sets of category trees, of varying kinds. Limited only by the software itself, and previous consensus on style and choice. So what I'm getting at is at the start, these cats are named badly, and trees designed into a mess. And at CfD the sections of these huge trees are having separate discussions, so we have ended up with varying results. It is art? visual art? fine art? Should we use media? media by type? medium? works? Should we have X based on Y categories? T (sorted) by Z? And how specific should they be? An author and his works? or just the author or just his works? how vague or specific? Which terminology should we use? How should we disambiguate the names? Are they too broad or too narrow in inclusion criteria (the name itself being the criteria)? Is any of this described in an article somewhere explaining and sourcing this? And finally, how much of this is flatly WP:OR, and has nothing to do with scholarly interest? And I've only barely scratched the surface of this mess. This isn't the only mess in categories, but it's becoming more and more a big one. And Stefanomione's lack of discussion beforehand tied with automated tool usage, makes this very quickly into a king sized mess that continues to grow very fast daily. As I said above, I think that if this was a bot, the bot would have been blocked by now, and the bot owner asked to explain the edits, and to proactively seek community consensus before such future edits. Else their bot privileges may be indefinitely suspended and the bot indefinitely blocked. And yes, there are many examples in this page's archives supporting this assertion. - jc37 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Per Jc37, this is a big mess and getting bigger. Before Stefanomione gets to create any more categories, even by prior discussion, zie should first work with other editors to review the huge number of categories created so far. That will be a big task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been wondering what to do about this user's category creations for a long time now. A very high percentage of them have to be renamed or deleted, and this has consistently been the case for a long time now. I essentially agree with what other users have written above. Good Ol’factory 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone who puts that big a strain on CFD resources probably should be on an editing restriction. Agree with the community sanction mentioned above. --Kbdank71 05:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the above discussion, I think we have clear consensus for this community sanction. Do any administrators/bureaucrats here know how to disable HotCat for a particular user? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Misplaced Pages habits hurt editing!

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

Original section header: "Bad Misplaced Pages habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

I usually just read Misplaced Pages. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Misplaced Pages nonsense.

Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Misplaced Pages yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Misplaced Pages, I mean, English Misplaced Pages. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here . Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Misplaced Pages. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two key things from my very own user page:

1. Who are all these socks (essay)
2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU

Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.

Secondly, Bad Misplaced Pages Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Misplaced Pages. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.

Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun

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

Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

A Sock Puppet investigation on user seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.

I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support banning the wrongdoer

(as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are

1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed

IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
• another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply . And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another misleading and wrong comment. Topgun clearly gives the link of the comment he is talking about --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban violation

• On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:

This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Xavexgoem and countless others on 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking

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

I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Misplaced Pages entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.

Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Shirt, if you were an admin, would you block indefinitely? (Just throwing this out there for the purpose of discussion--finding "a way forward".) Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, if I were an WP:ADMIN, I would immediately recuse myself from any sysop action as WP:INVOLVED, come back as an editor, strike the comment as a personal attack, apologise to the editor, and talk to them about how to improve the project.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

tpg on obama:talk

Will someone please revert ? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess my point wasn't obvious. I meant since this is at ANI, it seems you must be requesting the help of an admin and if not, what is this doing at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Midemer a time-out for this edit. I am open to comment if anybody thinks I am being too harsh, but it seemed to me like a classic WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaa wedontdotimeoutblockomgwtfbbq. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest Midemer stop bringing up DD2K in to every single discussion as it's starting to sound like harassment. Although DD2K may have done the initial archiving, the reversion NotEnt was asking us to remove was not done by them. And I note they really failed to notify DD2K having checked the right contrib history this time. I don't feel the previous notification of discussion is sufficient since this is a different topic. However I'm not going to bother with the notification since it seems unnecessary given that Midemer was quickly blocked and no one else is interested in discussion DD2K in yet another thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly after looking at his comments I'm thinking a longer block is going to be needed until Midemer is capable of comprehending that Misplaced Pages is a collegial, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"_"Human_Health"-2012-02-26T07:03:00.000Z">

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

The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)_"Human_Health""> _"Human_Health"">

I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)_"Human_Health""> _"Human_Health"">

It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Bronowski

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

I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lichtman (edit talk links history)

Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:78.101.214.226—Possible legal threat

This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Misplaced Pages" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I looked over the contribs and saw him reporting a vandal to AIV. He seems to simply be trying to revert vandalism. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

YehudaMizrahi

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

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

YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material this editor, using several IPs, frequently removes from Ofra Haza is the fact that she is of Yemeni origin, and plays Yemeni-influenced music. This editor has also removed the word "Yemeni" (or in some cases replaced it with the Hebrew version, "Teimani") from many food articles, including Malawach, Jachnun, Skhug and others; and has disruptively edited many dance articles, including Yemenite step, Hora (dance), Flamenco , Huayño and many more. These have been reverted by many different editors, few of whom have noticed the disruptive editing in other areas. I have reported him twice for sockpuppetry. Although my reports have been recognised as accurate and justified, no action has been taken because this editor's editing pattern involves spates of activity using a main account and several IPs (all registered in Hamilton, Ontario), followed by periods of inactivity. So, by the time reports are examined, the editor is not actually editing. But the overall pattern is both tendentious and disruptive, and the incivility towards both Malik and myself in itself deserves sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just invoked WP:NOTHERE and indeffed YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. If any admin thinks I was too heavy-handed, feel free to tweak the block settings. Salvio 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So administrator Salvio giuliano blocked an editor participating in one of our most contentious topic areas who:

(1) repeatedly uses non-English phrases to call other editors "son of a whore", "wanker",

(2) uses non-English and English phrases to tell other editors "kiss my ass", and "go fuck yourself"

(3) logs out to continue, under various IP's, a long-term campaign to remove the word "Yemeni" from multiple articles.

WP:NOTHERE seems an accurate assessment: A good call on the block, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz & User:RolandR - Biased users not allowing sourced information but allowing non-sourced information from others

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have contributed a lot of information on youtube articles that User:Malik Shabazz has even decided to keep. At first he allowed one of my source on but after 2 months he took it away, since I was concerned I put my source again and he responded by already threatening me that he is going to block me. He is very rude and pushy.

As for User:RolandR, he leaves the Ofra Haza article without sources, he has allowed non-sourced sentences in Ofra Haza's article, but when I put a sentence on Ofra Haza's Teimanim background with sources, he took it off and right away he messaged me threatening me in a rude way that he was going to block me. All I'm doing is trying to contribute to wikipedia, he is also accusing me of other things which are not true. He has issues and his articles are clearly biased since he is allowing non-sourced information. For anyone who is concerned, please do check out the Ofra Haza article. I already reported these users. Please do report these people for a non-bias wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaMizrahi (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This and this are unacceptable. His reactions were downright civil compared to your's. If gentile Christians were present as well (which the first source indicated), it's unbalanced to limit it to only Jewish Christians, so Malik is correct to have reverted you and asked you to stop.

Calling someone Malaka (see Malakas, folks) is also totally unacceptable. As for this, is is indeed our business, because it is unacceptable to use different addresses for sockpuppetry here. As for claiming that he's allowing uncited material, the first source in the article says "Ms. Haza proudly asserted her background as a Yemenite Jew." Another also says "Ofra Haza was born on November 19, 1957 in the Hatikvah quarter of Tel Aviv to parents who had immigrated from Yemen". Your claim that the Yemeni bit is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, your attempted change reverted here cites a source which again says Haza was one of nine children born to parents who had emigrated from Yemen" and at no point does the word "Teimanim" appear anywhere in the source you cite.

In short, not only were Malik and RolandR right to revert you and let you know that you will be blocked if you keep it up, you were wrong to misuse sources, make various personal attacks, and claim that they were the ones causing sourcing problems.

I recommend backing off, or an admin would be completely justified in blocking you after one more screw up. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not only from Ofra Haza that this user and his many sockpuppets is removing the word "Yemeni", but also from many more, including Bo'az Ma'uda, Malawach, Israeli folk dancing, Achinoam Nini, Jachnun], Yemenite step and several others. This slow-moving tendentious editing is extremely disruptive, and is wasting the time of very many editors. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange socking and edit warring

This strange edit warring discussed here a couple of weeks ago has reared its head again. Revertorium (talk · contribs) and several IPs in the 69.171.160 range are edit warring, with Revertorium claiming that the IPs are socks of the banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Anyone know anything about this? Should we block both? (see also WT:PLANTS#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for 24 hours (IP 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)) as they were being disruptive. If anyone knows anything about this though, please unblock/lengthen blocks as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A knee-jerk block without any investigation? Bad move. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it was preventative, not a punishment per WP:BLOCK. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Revertorium (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Won'tBeBackAHAHAHA (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IsThisReallyWhatWeWant? (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, I have made Revertorium's block indefinite. --MuZemike 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This accusation is blatantly false. Several admins know exactly which banned user loves to accuse me of socking, and I'd say that is who is behind the specific edits from the 69.171.160.0/24 range. My guess is that the named socks above are User:Vigilant. My guesses and 50 cents will buy you a coke. I keep this account as a sort-of doppelganger now (with very rare exceptions like this edit), and I edit regularly now under a new account; names have long-since been disclosed to the WP Functionaries. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell do you find a Coke for 50 cents these days? --NellieBly (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On one day in 2003 you could get it for a nickel. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for clarifying what was going on. I don't anyone any of us at WP:PLANTS would have suspected a banned user faking a revert war with himself. Circéus (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this exact thing happens surprisingly (disturbingly?) often... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Two different banned users. One using the IP range noted above, the other using Vigilant, Revertorium, etc. Both edit-warring against each other. Over the past year, I have been accused, without any evidence, of socking from many different accounts (one of which was a poor attempt at impersonation) and IP address by one of those banned users, which is why I chose to step in and refute this time. It seems like everywhere he goes, he sees socks that absolutely must be me, but he is sadly mistaken. I will now go back to my regular (and long ago properly disclosed to the Functionaries) account now, and leave this one as a doppelganger again.

As for 50 cents for Coke, well, it was 50 cents when I started using that saying back in the early 90's. I haven't made it keep up with inflation, because "that and a buck twenty-five will buy you a Coke" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Pfagerburg (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the 69.171.160.xx range again from six months. There was some discussion at WT:PLANTS, but it was agreed that it was probably a sensible course of action. Then the following conversation happened. It's pretty pointless as the range has been blocked, why is "Can'tWehaveADialog?" harping on it further? I mean, he's obviously not defending the IPs/users concerned. Can we get a IP check and if possible also a IP block on that one? I have an eery feeling that trolling of a sort is at play here, but as I mentioned to someone in private, I haven't really done enforcement for years now (the mop didn't turn out to be something I normally deal all that well with). Circéus (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to ask someone to do that! SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we talk about this in just this one section without the banhammer falling immediately?

These are the IPs that have been used from the 69.171.160.* range to edit WP:PLANT articles, almost exclusively orchid articles:

Note also the common thread with Military Brat and anti mormon stuff intermixed with plant articles.

• 69.171.160.6 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.7 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.21 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.24 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.26 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.28 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.32 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.34 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.35 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.42 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.43 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.48 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.51 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.58 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.83 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.85 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.92 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.94 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.96 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.98 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.114 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.120 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well, making the link even stronger
• 69.171.160.134 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.144 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.150 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.151 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.152 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.153 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.157 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.164 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.165 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.168 (talk · contribs) Plus WP:ANI, "I am NOT Merkey" stuff
• 69.171.160.174 (talk · contribs) Plus Utah stuff where Merkey used to live
• 69.171.160.181 (talk · contribs) Not orchid, but still under WP:PLANT
• 69.171.160.183 (talk · contribs) Plus Bisexual erasure, Merkey's been on a "I'm bisexual" thing lately
• 69.171.160.186 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.187 (talk · contribs) Plus anti mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.192 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.194 (talk · contribs) Pus ANI stuff
• 69.171.160.200 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.201 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.209 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.210 (talk · contribs) Cactus
• 69.171.160.216 (talk · contribs) Ginseng
• 69.171.160.218 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.227 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.231 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.237 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.238 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.239 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well
• 69.171.160.242 (talk · contribs) Poppy
• 69.171.160.247 (talk · contribs)

IPs in the same range editing topics near and dear to Merkey's heart:

• 69.171.160.13 (talk · contribs) Edited anti-Mormon stuff, another Merkey strong hold
• 69.171.160.52 (talk · contribs) Linux, Pamela Jones(groklaw.net), etc
• 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs) Anti-Mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.65 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.75 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.78 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.91 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.93 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.104 (talk · contribs) anti mormon
• 69.171.160.109 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.111 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.126 (talk · contribs) Pamela jones
• 69.171.160.127 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks a previous Merkey Employer
• 69.171.160.139 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks
• 69.171.160.141 (talk · contribs) Military brat, PTSD stuff
• 69.171.160.166 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.148 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.161 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.175 (talk · contribs) Making sock puppet allegations against someone
• 69.171.160.178 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.180 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.199 (talk · contribs) Military brat and grief stuff
• 69.171.160.202 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.207 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.219 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.224 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.232 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.234 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.235 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.255 (talk · contribs) Military brat

Take a look at the evidence compiled here. Jeff Merkey has gone to great lengths to insert (probably) copyrighted text into many articles using a wide array of IP addresses to mask his work.

Can we talk about this here and ANI without getting out the ban hammer?

Please note that there is text directly below the edit window that reads, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. "

Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think introducing yourself first would be the polite thing to do? What's this all about? Who the heck is Merkey in the first place. Using his name is not enough justification for mass reverts. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Merkey's history. Poke around. Tons of sockpuppets, indef'd at lesast 20 times, legal threats, calling people's work, crazy stuff about gays and Mormons, the works. Also, search for Merkey.

He has effectively polluted your orchid articles by adding tons of edits with no citations/sources over a wide range of IP addresses. Do what you will. Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian, this user is another sockpuppet of User:Revertorium and User:It'sJeffMerkeyYouFools from the Orchid Wars discussion above.--Tom Hulse (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the section heading? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Lol. You want to have a "dialog" about how Jeff is using sockpuppets and is editing while banned... while you use sockpuppets and edit while banned? You can't see how ridiculous your postings are? I for one one would like to thank you for the free entertainment. This is better than a soap opera, lol. ;) --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one inserting thousands of edits of dubious copyright status into hundreds of articles on Misplaced Pages? Can't *you* see the difference? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer and false accusations of sockpuppetry

Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently topic banned from alt med articles per the thread towards the top of AN/I right now. He has taken to making false accusations of sockpuppetry against myself, User:SummerPhD and User:Famousdog on his talk page. I warned him here that this can be construed as harassment and explained that all three of us are established editors that edit many pages. He removed my message without responding and has left the accusations on his talk page. I'm not asking to have the user blocked, rather I would like these accusations to either be stricken or taken to WP:SPI and then stricken when it's confirmed that there is no socking. I will notify the user of this discussion momentarily. Nformation 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user has been notified but removed the notification here. Nformation 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to bother SPIing you as I'm leaving WP for good but it seems you don't know when to stop. --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're leaving then blank your talk page and go. As long as you're still here and there are false accusations about me and other editors then it's something that has to be dealt with, sorry. Nformation 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are "suspicions of sock puppetry" and WP:SPI is "a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry", I'm not sure I can see any reason one of us (or should that be "one of me"?) cannot dispose of this by starting a thread there with MJ's accusation. Other than the complete waste of an investigator's time (which I'd imagine would be brief), I'd have no objection. Otherwise, whatever. MJ is, purportedly, gone. Problem, purportedly, solved. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block review

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

User Jehochman has blocked an IP editor for 48 hours, for a matter which was precipitated by user:jehochman, who is thus involved. 48 hours seems excessive. Indeed the block seems punitive, without further sensible explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if you could link to the blocker, the blockee, and diff the precipitating event(s). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, broadband is playing up. See talk page for IP editor 90.179.235.249 . Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Convenience links: Jehochman (talk · contribs), 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs). I've also notified both editors, which you hadn't done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? The IP was disruptive, as explained in my block message, and then posted two unblock requests that were both were declined. Jehochman 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not pursue this particular thread, Newbyguesses. Nothing good will come of it, and I understand that there is justifiable frustration over this matter that is not being adequately addressed. I am also frustrated; but I'm not about to open a thread like this when I know that the thread is completely doomed. Things will work themselves out - it'll be okay. Cheers... Doc talk 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page and explain concerns, calmly, with context, and any relevant evidence. Best practice is to attempt a discussion rather that coming straight here. Jehochman 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I see no evidence of an "involvement" that would suggest that Jehochman could not rationally or objectively make an administrator's decision. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heh - well, I guess it's all in how you read the first paragraph of this. Perhaps the vague language should be "hammered out"? I see more misunderstandings on "involved" than perhaps any other policy point - especially among administrators. Doc talk 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• All too often "involvement" is invoked to attempt to de-legitimize even simple blocks. It seems pretty obvious to me that the IP was plenty disruptive. And what about Tiderolls' denying the unblock request? Or we going to review every block on ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heck no! I said that NBG should not pursue this here - close the thread. Doc talk 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been my observation that the area between cries of "Involved!" and cries of "Drive-by adminning!" is disturbingly narrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting "admin abuse". Doc talk 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Not that I hvew the faintest idea what going on here, but if the suggestion is that the thread be closed not because there is no case to answer, but because "justice won't be done" than that seems a poor precedent. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, a thirty-second review suggests to me that this is a block that could stand review. Not saying of course that I'm prejudging, just that this appears messy enough that it bears review. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It does need review, and you are correct that I suggested closing it only because I felt that it had no chance to be taken seriously, and not because it had no merit. Doc talk 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• re:Doc's comment on admin abuse. Personally, even admins. get tired of being abused. If you cut us, do we not bleed? ... sigh ... — Ched :  ?  06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've said many times that cries of "admin abuse" mean that an admin is indeed being abused. Doc talk 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

if the IP agrees to and acts to stop attacking other editors, and stops encouraging others to violate policy, I can shorten their block to time served. Jehochman 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, please, for the attacks and encouragements for others to violate policy? (I note how harsh we are to complainants who make claims such as that without evidence.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jehochman doesn't mind me finding the diffs for him, here they are: Clear PA on North8000 and S Marshall: "You and S Marshall are either trolling or incapable of clear judgement" . The encouragment to violate policy is sketchier, but I presume the comments here are what's being referred to, in relation to the discussion preceding them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let us not forget this one a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. User:Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Newby, you are involved in the WP:V dispute on the same side as te IP, aren't you. How is your participation here not merely an extension of that same battle? (Same comment applies to anybody else who spilled over from that dispute to here.) Jehochman 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have encouraged the user to discuss their differences with Jehochman, on the IP's talk page. I too had questions about this block here. I would note that the arguable PA, noted by Bushranger, took place in the context of dispute resolution, and it did not inflame that discussion, at all, nor was it even noted upon by the third party DR mediators - there should be some leeway for users in that context to layout their differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP followed me to a totally unrelated page and told a user I had just unblocked to disregard my advice about how to remain unblock. That was disruptive and downright cruel to the other user, because it was goading him to get blocked again. When I checked the edit history and saw that the IP had made personal attacks against other editors; the balance of weight was that the IP needed to be blocked. My prior comment about the IP (which probably motivated the IP to hound me) did not factor into the equation at all because at the time I did not recognize that this IP and that IP were the same one. IP numbers aren't memorable like usernames. If the IP renounces personal attacks, hounding and disrupting, they can be unblocked early. Otherwise, the block expires after another day. Jehochman 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Were you talking to me? I am not on any "side" here user:Jehochman. And, it appears we do have the luxury of discussing this for another day, and then it's all over. Yet you rushed to unblock (with a manufactured consensus) another memorable user who had been fairly blocked.

These inconsistencies are the reason I have braved the wrath of this page, not any "side", as if that is what you want to think. And I do not want "blood on the floor" , I know what a trial it must be especially here for admins to face accusations that are way unfair, and have to bear it. No, I don't want that at all, and for me, believe, it ain't about winning, just seeing some fairness done, and efficient process. NewbyG ( talk) 14:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand better. I hope J and the IP can work it out, as I have encouraged the IP to do. The IP should be reflective. I am sure J will listen to you with a sincere and generous purpose. Hopefully you will do the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry if I'm not terribly informed on this yet, but is "disregard advice" what was meant by "encouraging others to violate policy"? I'm a bit thick, so can I have an explicit answer on that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The problem was the next diff, a nasty bit of antisemitic incitement to a user who already had problems with antisemitic POV pushing: I even cited this diff in my block message so that the user would understand why they had been blocked. Jehochman 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole of that diff is

"And you are right, many articles have strong Jewish bias, especially those about the history of Israel. Most of them cite the old testament as a reliable source and describe elements of Jewish religion as if they were facts. That would not be acceptable anywhere else."

I do not believe that that quote can be reasonably defined as promoting hatred toward Jews. I feel as though I'm asking the same question several times, but I'm not seeing how that is "encouraging others to violate policy"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe what's meant is that diff, in context with the rest of the discussion it was added as a response to, was considered incitement. (I haven't had the time to look through the discussion to opine if it actually is or not, but I think that's what's being said here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding, you win the prize. Jehochman 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous contention. Even in context, this is simply a matter of bullying an IP user, because it is so easy to do. I still think that is a shameful thing to do. NewbyG ( talk) 09:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The good faith editor, the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 has been blocked unfairly, and since 03:00 yesterday, that is 24 hours too long, that is 40 hours too long. The sham sockpuppet investigation is concluded.

  User:Jehochman, I calll upon you to exhibit some clue in this matter, and unblock the Czech IP 90.179.235.249. Fix your foolish mistake.

  Should you not care to, then we must await further comment here, and discern a consensus, on the block of the good-faith editor the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 which you wrongly enacted, IMHO Thank you-- NewbyG ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Noozgroop

For a whole year, Noozgroop (talk · contribs) has been violating the Manual of Style of Misplaced Pages (MOS). The MOS says: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". The MOS rule s/he has been changing is the MOS:NUM (WP:ORDINAL), which states: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". I know that many people prefer to write "16" rather than "sixteen", but the MOS accepts both uses, and unless there is a real reason to make a change, challenging the style of an article, with no valid reasons, is kinda disrupting ("The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"). Considering that since February 2011 Noozgroop has been warned many times about the same—User talk:Noozgroop#February 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#Edit warring, User talk:Noozgroop#Regarding your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#July 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011 2, User talk:Noozgroop#Your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#November 2011 and User talk:Noozgroop#February 2012—and that he has very low (or no) interest to communicate with other people, I don't know what else can be done with this person. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! That toolserver is a killer. No talking to anyone? We do have bots, and they can be shut off when needed. Human editors must attempt to communicate at a basic level. Doc talk 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've issued a 48-hour attention-getting block (hopefully it'll be long enough that they notice it). EyeSerene 10:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious problem with an admin and POV pushing

Hello: I am having serious problem with User:Sitush and his friends who are admins. Please see this diff: specficially note the comments of James Frietag, Giles Tillotson, Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler. Sitush and his friends want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad" and any contrary opinion from Phd's and professors from top american schools are rejected by this bunch. They edit war and threaten to ban me. Please help. Ror Is King (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've started a discussion at the article's talk page, that's good.. but it was only minutes ago.. perhaps you should give discussion a chance first before coming to AN/I so quickly with a content dispute? We have many other venues of dispute resolution you can take advantage of. -- œ 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been having a problem with this bunch for weeks now. They all collude and want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad". On the other hand Phd Scholars Richard Saran, Norm Ziegler, Tillotson (ex director of Royal Asiatic Society) and Frietag's (faculty at ithaca college: http://faculty.ithaca.edu/jfreitag/) comments are deleted as if Sitush and his friends are the only authority. And admins Qwy and Boing support his POV pushing and have threatened to ban me multiple number of times. I fail to understand why I am not allowed to quote from above authors in the Criticism section of James Tod. Ror Is King (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough; I did tell Ror is King that xe should pursue dispute resolution if xe wanted to make those changes. As I mentioned on the talk page, that article was just promoted to Featured Article status last week. No less than 10 people participated in the FA discussion, and others commented on the article's talk page. No other editor found Ror's concerns to be compelling. We can certainly discuss the issue, though right now there appears (to me) to be a strong consensus against it. Also, it's relevant to note that many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India, so I don't think they qualify as "Sitush and his friends". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you questions on what you find wrong with Saran and Ziegler here and what you find wrong with Tillotson. You don't respond. Only thing you do is edit war and threaten to ban me. Since when has citing well refereed authors on wikipedia become a crime? Ror Is King (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If 9 editors have one view, and you have another, you need to consider that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't them - it's you. And even if you are in the right, you need to calmly discuss things, especially with the proposal of major changes to a just-promoted Featured Article, on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the 9 editors knew what has been written by Ziegler and Saran, Freitag and Tillotson on Tod. They were just towing Sitush's line. When I question Qwyrxian on his comments criticising me (see above) I see no response. So you see it is *just one* editor and his friends (some of who are admins) who are having a field day. If I add bonafide sources I am the one comitting the mistake since I am threatened to be banned. Ror Is King (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Thanks for noting "many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India". Should they really be reviewing the article then? I mean few editors who have no knowledge of the field but are good with wikipedia's quality standards are okay to have. But many of those types sounds odd. I dont have much experience and hence i dont know if its okay for many editors of film-articles to review FA nominations related to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I also found it odd that the article received FA status with all the discussions User:Ror Is King was having on its talk page and Sitush's talk page too. (Actually Sitush was also surprised with the FA status.) Most of the queries by Ror Is King (RIK) are replied by Sitush, sometimes you. Why did the evaluators not find it important to discuss these things with RIK? Was it because they found his statements not worthy to discuss, as you found them not worthy to include in the article? Or was it because they trusted that you two will sort it out; by some means? Now lets leave this particular case of inclusion in Tod's article aside. Is this the first time that you have been called as a "team"? Or do many editors have this opinion? Is this the first time that some editor has been threatened to be banned by "Sitush and his friends"? There is one editor currently saying the same things on India Noticeboard. I do see that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But why do have to threaten all editors? Would you please see this. Image:Qxz-ad15.gif. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute and the discussion started on the article talk page should continue there rather than being conducted in two places. I don't see any administrative action (blocks, page protection etc) necessary here, nor do I see any abuse of admin powers. Admins can edit, just like other editors and have no more or less powers when they use powers available to every editor. Kim Dent-Brown 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Ror Is King for 24 hours for edit-warring on James Tod blatantly against consensus. It's a new FA, and we cannot have this level of disruption on it. Also, I have played no part in the content disagreement, having only warned Ror Is King about his unacceptable refusal to follow WP:AGF (you can see on his Talk page), so his accusations against me are quite false. I consider myself still in line with WP:Uninvolved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So he wont be able to respond here? Or are blocked editors able to edit this page? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wants, he can respond on his page and, using {{adminhelp}}, can ask that his replies be moved here. Salvio 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) He cannot respond here while blocked; he will be able to keep the discussion going on the article's talk page tomorrow, and this discussion may even still be open then (though possibly not). Regarding your question above about me, in all fairness, yes Sitush and I have been called a team before, and, depending on the time of year and specific article, other editors have been named as part of a team. In a certain sense, I freely admit to being a "team" in that we're part of a fairly large group of editors that believes that Misplaced Pages editors should follow policies, most especially WP:NPOV and WP:V...that everyone should do their best to only use reliable sources...and that people shouldn't cherry pick a few words or phrases out of a longer passage to misrepresent what a source says (this last, btw, is precisely the concern with Ror is King's request on the article currently in question). Sometimes, Sitush alone or Sitush as part of a "team" are criticized, because people want to include what they know is true, even though their knowledge isn't supported by reliable sources. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily "wrong", but it does mean that they can't include such opinions/positions in Misplaced Pages articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, just looked at the WT:INB topic you mentioned. I'm not part of that "team", but in that case, too, the actions were 100% correct: the article that one editor created was replete with copyright violations (in fact, other than references, it had nothing but copyright violations). Copying and pasting from other sources is not only against Misplaced Pages's rules, depending on how extensive it is, it may even be illegal. Any time you or anyone else ever sees copyright violations in articles, they should be removed immediately, with an explanation left in an edit summary or on the talk page. Since there was nothing left in the article after the copyvios were removed, it was rightly speedily deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will be happy to copy any comments from Ror Is King to here from his Talk page - I will inform him so very shortly. And any admin is welcome to review my block, which was not a result of this ANI report, but was for disrupting a new FA by edit-warring against clear consensus. (On top of his general refusal to assume good faith, and his apparent misrepresentation of sources to push a non-consensus POV, he is really being quite disruptive) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While Rik was certainly edit warring, he was also trying to resolve matters using this process. I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked. The status as a new FA is a bit problematical, as we publicize new FAs through the Signpost to bring them to community attention and we shouldn't be surprised when community members duly edit in response. "Disruption" is a term I think we should avoid, as it is so amorphous it can easily be used for finger pointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear--this isn't a new member coming to the process. Everything that RiK changed now was a change xe proposed while the FA process was ongoing. No editor watching the article at that time found merit in RiK's edits. Furthermore, at one point RiK quoted a source to support his words. However when Sitush got a full copy of that source, it turned out that RiK had (either through malice or simple failure to read enough of the source) that, when the rest of the paragraph was read, the source's meaning was exactly the opposite of the position RiK was trying to include in the article. Furthermore, the editor reverted 3 times today to xyr preferred version (being reverted twice by myself and once by Sitush, with a third editor saying on talk that xe would have reverted had I not gotten to it first), despite the fact that the issue had already been discussed and rejected by a number of other editors, over a week ago. As such, the block was warranted as RiK knew that the change was against consensus and had previously been warned against edit warring. That being said, Boing! said on RiK's talk page that the block could be reduced to time served if RiK promises to stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. I should have been more clear I was switching from a specific point to making a general one about FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked". I agree, and in fact said exactly that to him at the time of the block. I'm also happy for anyone else to unblock if they believe further edit warring is unlikely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: I already said that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But the way disputes are handled is sometimes wrong. A edit war doesnt happen just because of one party. Its takes two to war. I once encountered a editor who wouldnt talk on talk pages, his or mine or article's. All he said was through Edit Summary when he reverted my edits. That was the only means he wanted to use. But in this case RIK was talking with you people. The material he had put on the article could have stayed there itself till you had your discussion. The material he added was not even legally contentious or defamatory. It, on the contrary, was speaking good about the subject. Dead Tod was not gonna rise and sue Misplaced Pages for keeping something good about him for few hours or even days. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Operative phrase here is "you people" (whatever that means--if it is an insult, they people should probably let it slide): it's not two who or going to war here. It's a whole bunch of editors, and RiK has been disrupting (yes) the article for quite some time now. At some point, enough is enough. Lending credibility to repeated claims of bias, against consensus, actually makes a mockery of the rigor of the FA process. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue with you about it, but FA's, as we both know, are not delivered on tablets of stone. Certainly, FAC is not dispute resolution. That being said, such might want to be considered in this matter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, they're not stone tablets, but at the very least they suggest consensus at a given moment. RiK was a dissenter there on this point, but their objection didn't stand in the way of promotion--I can't see on this edit screen if this discussion on the talk page is linked here or not (it's mentioned by Sitush in the FA review), but it is insightful. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate resolution

• The way I see it, this is a content dispute which has escalated. I concur with User:OlEnglish's suggestion. May I suggest the case be moved to Content disputes noticeboard and the issue of the content taken up with both sides leaving out the behavioural allegations/aspects?
• In case both parties agree to move the case there, I also request the blocking admin to release the block if the affected parties agree to behave during this process so that the atmosphere is not vitiated.
• All parties to the dispute are also requested to NOT edit James Tod for whatever reason so as to maintain a peaceful atmosphere for resolving this. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I will weigh in here. This article has just gone through FAC, which is a pretty rigorous process. One person had a problem with alleged bias. Their concerns were examined, the full text of their relevant points was obtained ... and it seemed clear that they had misrepresented those texts. Subsequently, the article was promoted and then the alleging contributor returns and resumes their disruptive edits in exactly the same manner as prior to the promotion, and citing exactly the same misrepresented sources. Similar behaviour occurred when they reported me here last November. Which bit of WP:IDHT does not apply here? I am happy to continue discussion but unless something new is brought to the table it seems to be somewhat pointless, whether it is conducted at the article talk page, WP:DRN or at any other venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@AshLin I have already agreed to lift the block as soon RIK agrees to stop edit-warring against consensus (a consensus that has been rigorously arrived at during the FA discussion). There are no other parties whose agreements I would need, as in my judgment no other parties were in breach of any policies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We also have the brand spanking new "Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard" at WP:ECCN. I saw the word "caste" up above so I'm guessing this might be relevant. Nformation 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Eschoir (talk · contribs · block log)'s general conduct has been commented on very negatively on grounds of WP:EW, WP:V and WP:Competence is required in edits by Edjohnston and by Bwilkins.

Now that the recent complaint against him for edit-warring has been archived with no action taken, he has resumed the activity on which he eased up while the complaint was still open (cf. comment by Lionelt).

I will now inform all the editors I have mentioned here. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

His return to disruptive editing is textbook gaming the system. – Lionel 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "textbook", but I've seen enough. I have unfortunately indeffed, but provided a very in-depth, personalized block notice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

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

I made the following edits:

1. folded the excessive quote into prose, per WP:LONGQUOTE
2. also merge small paragraphs talking about the same thing
3. copyedit, losing some transient and peacock terms
4. noted criticism, per Talk

And then immediately bam:

1. rv

The explanation posted at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies is unconvincing at best, and at worst indicative of a string of sockpuppets operated by User:Bormalagurski - User:Cinéma C, User:UrbanVillager. Does anyone else think this is just a wee bit too much WP:OWN to be an accident? --Joy (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly. But the edits you point at are from November 2011. Bormalagurski hasn't edited since 2006, and Cinéma C not since 2010. It is entirely possible that you're correct (UrbanVillager is an SPA with no other interests, and came out of nowhere with some decent editing skills) but there's nothing that an SPI can do now, and Bormalagurski and Cinema C aren't blocked to begin with. Can't you edit or re-edit the article and see what happens? You have WP:NPOV backing you up, I suppose. Or, I don't see what admin intervention could be helpful here, besides an as-yet unwarranted block. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Understanding a REVDEL

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

Just curious: see the REVDEL between these two edits in Template:Smallcaps all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Was there a site-threatening edit so that even the editor's name/IP had to be removed? And not a revdel note? It could be my edit! What went wrong? -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant log entry is here. The admin was hiding his own edit that he accidentally created during a history merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The deleted edit was from 13:22, 25 February 2012, way before the history merge process (01:04, 27 February 2012‎). Also, is it essential to rm the editors id and not providing the revdel-reason is such case? -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont quite understand it either, my guess is that before RevDel was enabled that edit would have been simply deleted the old-fashioned way, as it doesnt seem to belong. But there's nothing "controversial" there, really. Definitely not site-threatening. ☮Soap☮ 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.

There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:

• Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
• March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH )
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 )
• Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
• Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH)
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit appears unrelated to the AAH.

Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited , , , , . A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.

In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book , , . Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page , , , , , . In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical , , though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The SPI came back as no accounts related to each other . The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible topic ban violation

It was pointed out to me on my talkpage that Cybermud (talk · contribs) may have violated the men's rights topic ban I placed on him here, which was confirmed in this AN/I discussion, by participating in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination). I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could review this and see if action needs to be taken. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the edits you mention border on violating Cybermud's topic ban but do not cross the line. He was banned from making edits related to the topic of men's rights not feminism. I believe, however, it might be wise for Cybermud to avoid that general topic area and concentrate on something completely different for a time... Salvio 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copying my commentary on this over from Sarek's talk page. I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked (or rather, to be diametrically opposed to one another, and in constant struggle), and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to wikilawyer, considering that even I am suggesting Cybermud to concentrate on different topics; however, you should link to his restriction, not to the terms of the article probation. Cybermud was a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. I consider it a stretch to argue those words also include an article about men and feminism, no matter what men's rights advocates may think.

    Considering that you yourself think that his input to the discussion was rather reasonable and that it is, at least, disputed that his restriction prevented Cybermud from participating in that AfD, I believe Cybermud should not be sanctioned. Salvio 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and feminism is directly related to Men's rights because the article discusses Men's rights, see the entire section Men and feminism#Antifeminist response. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Cybermud has violated his topic ban, see this warning. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree it's related to men's rights. I also agree with Salvio that the topic ban was unfortunately poorly worded. I believe the normal wording is something like from "topic banned from articles related to TB" which makes it clear it's from all articles related to the topic TB. (Sometimes broadly construed may be added.) In this case, the topic ban could easily be read to suggest the ban is from the article (rather then the topic) Men's rights including talk pages and related pages. What's a related page isn't specified, so it could be intepreted to mean xFDs and AN(I) discussions of the article. Or perhaps sub articles of men's rights (of which there are none), but not, related but non subarticles. (Men and feminism can't really be said to be a subarticle of men's rights, of feminism sure. It mentions men's rights, but also other things.) It's suggested multiple places in this thread this isn't the first time, if so, has the topic ban been clarified to Cybermud before? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page section deals with his previous violation. Kim Dent-Brown also clarified his topic ban on the original section somewhat, saying "You are banned from the Men's rights article and other articles in the same topic area." I think Cybermud realized, or should have reasonably realized, that this article was included in his ban. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In that case I agree that whatever the original wording, it should have been clear that the topic ban was in the wider topic area and covered men and feminism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (recused sysop comment) This is just one further instance of Cybermud flaunting site policy in a long history of it. Salvio Men and feminism has a section on Men's rights - its about men's rights as well as profeminism and other related topics, it falls smack bang in the middle of the topic ban & bans apply to all edits good or bad--Cailil 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. With most other editors, I would be inclined to say we should let it slide, but this is cybermud's second violation of his topic ban, and shows his continued flagrant disregard for... well... pretty much everything about Misplaced Pages. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How the heck can Men and feminism not be related to "Men's rights"? Men and feminism has a 5 paragraph section titled "Men's rights", and the entire "men's rights movement" arose as a response against feminism. The two topics are directly and closely related. This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, IMO. Whether or not his edit was helpful or disruptive is immaterial. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a fairly clear (if not particularly large) consensus that Cybermud has breached his topic ban; looking at the article in question I also agree that the article clearly falls within the scope of the ban. I am going to block Cybermud for for the duration of the ban (until 10 March), which is a bit under 2 weeks. I've never blocked an editor for breaching a ban before, so I invite the review of others if they feel the amount of time is too long or two short; we may also want to consider whether there should be an extension of the topic ban, per Kim Dent-Brown's closing comment for the ANI discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with me, and I only noticed this from the watchlist, as I seen the word 'block' and was having a nosey. But I would say a reasonable punishment for anyone who breaches a ban, would be to start the length of the original ban again, and add an additional 50% of the original sentence to the banning order - that way the offender is being punished not only for committing the original offence, but also for breaching it too. Just making an observer suggestion that all. Wesley☀Mouse 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Behavior of user Xelba.davi

New user Xelba.davi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing the BLP Eliyahu Rips into a manifesto for the Bible codes (alleged messages about the future hidden in the Bible text). Rips is a proponent of these codes, but the new text violates almost every rule of Misplaced Pages. This diff shows the additions in question. It has severe violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, just look at it and you will find stuff like "The Torah was created prior to the creation of the world" and "The evolution of the Universe (and of the Earth) is derived from an infinite combination of the letters of the Torah" written in the neutral voice of Misplaced Pages. You will find citations to Facebook and self-published web sites. You will find gross distortions of the opinions of living people: "Robert Aumann: this is the greatest discovery of three hundred years of scientific research". Also a claim that critics are antisemites: "Eliyahu Rips is accused of being biased in his research, since he is an Orthodox Jew". Apart from claiming that his/her work is just fine , Xelba.davi reverts any changes without comment and barges ahead without answering objections or engaging in discussion.(history) I do not see any way forward other than administrator assistance.

User notified:

Disclosure: As the presence of my real name on the page indicates, I am involved in the "Bible codes" debate as a skeptic. Even though I have never inserted my own opinion into this page, I would really like someone totally uninvolved to take over the defense of it.

Remedy sought: The page should be protected at a version which does not contain the offending material, such as this version. User Xelba.davi should be blocked from editing. McKay (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted, and have left a warning for unverified edits, to which I will add a separate note. But McKay, do you really need to bring this to ANI? (No.) FWIW, you're both edit-warring a little bit here. Next time, the BLP noticeboard is probably a better venue, and if it gets worse, the edit warring board. Oh, no--Xelba will not yet be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I think that the best defense against such butchering is to make the article better; this one was in a pretty piss-poor state, not having a single reliable reference. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eyes, please

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

Interesting edits on Joachim Gauck. An IP (217.23.69.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) keeps adding quotation marks around the word Gulag--Gauck's father was sent to one. There are multiple sources--this one speaks of "ein Straflager nach Sibirien" and this one spells out Gulag. IP claims the latter is incorrect and we're dealing with "a ministry". I want to call this vandalism, and I think many of the IP's other edits are questionable, but since I'm at 3R I can't revert anymore; it is a BLP, but the issue concerns the father. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Having recently unblocked this ip, I have now reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And reverted? Drmies (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification required on interaction ban

According to what was posted on my talk page regarding the interaction ban between myself and he who must not be named "making reference to or commenting on him or his actions" is a violation. I should like it clarified if the following would fall under commenting on my actions? I ask as from what was posted on my talk page if clarification of the IBAN was needed then it had to be asked here, and not on some random admins talk pages. Also due to the IBAN I am unable to inform he who must not be named about this, so would appreciate another doing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dru of Id (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think asking for clarification of an interaction ban is perfectly common sense and not a violation of ban. I asked an admin about those as pointed out above. One of the issues was later brought to ANI.. the new ones were still unclear so I asked an admin who commented on that ANI report. I don't think there's any thing wrong with that. I'll however like to be clarified about the queries asked in those diffs since they've been brought here now:

• I requested closure of an RFC (before the closure was addressed, the RFC was restarted - I added remarks about that too at )... now I have an interaction ban so you can read those remarks on the given link, the RFC was closed accordingly by an admin. This uninvolved admin closure (requested by me) was reverted by the user I have interaction ban with. Is this an indirect ban violation or just a bad revert of a formal closure? How am I to go about this if it is the latter case?
• Closing my nominations (regardless of the achieved consensus) isn't a violation of ban? ... can I do the opposite too?

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I undid DarknessShines reversion. Asking an admin for clarification, or even to undo an action, is not a violation of the interaction ban. Both of you are good editors when you're not gunning for each other so I strongly suggest that you keep an arm's length distance from each other for the time being. Also, DarknessShines, pointy actions (such as rehashing things in a new RfC immediately after closing the earlier one) could easily lead to a topic ban on Pakistan topics, so I suggest extra care. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been reverted again by JCAla... aren't admin closures meant to stay closed? (especially which are closed thrice ) I've informed the closing admin of JCAla's revert though. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the first sentence of TopGun's comment — it goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages to say that you can't refer to the ban itself. We're not in the business of issuing super-injunctions here. Thank you for bringing up this issue in a wholly appropriate manner. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

True Life in God: Possible Vandalism?

True Life in God was a stub-article when I found it, so I added two sections: Writing Style and Eastern Orthodox Church's Stance. Than the section Roman Catholic Church's Stance was added. Under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, I added the following paragraph from the Vassula Ryden article:

After a request was made by Rydén in 2000 to the aforementioned congregation (the CDF), the then Cardinal Ratzinger invited Rydén, in 2002, to answer five questions about her messages and its relation to the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition. Rydén sent her replies to the Congregation later that same year. At the end of this dialogue, the former president of the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict XVI, formally requested that Rydén publish the full correspondence between herself and the CDF in the published TLIG books. Later still, the Cardinal wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments". The whole process was concluded with a private audience between Rydén, the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt who had first requested the dialogue in 1999.<reference>Dialogue between Vassula Ryden and the CDF - http://www.cdf-tlig.org http://www.cdf-tlig.org/introduction.html</reference>

Then, after I edited the paragraph a little bit, I decided to go to the referenced website (http://www.cdf-tlig.org). I found it was a self-referenced or self-published website, which is not according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I deleted the paragraph as such and explained why I did that on the http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:True_Life_in_God.

Then, on the Talk Page, I started receiving false accusations of bias from an user, who appears to not have a userpage: Sasanack. I explained why I deleted the paragraph to him.

Sashnack "undid revision 479107697" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=True_Life_in_God&action=history) and another user, Arkatakor, falsely accused me of deleting content pertaining to writings on the Vassula Ryden article.

I'm unsure what to do now, as it seems like the article is being vandalized by these two users. Below is a list of edits of the TLIG article, so you can see the diffs.

TLIG: My first edit

TLIG: My second edit

TLIG: My third edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's first edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's second edit

TLIG: My fourth edit

TLIG: My fourth edit (comparison to my third edit)

TLIG: My fifth edit

TLIG: My sixth edit

TLIG: My seventh edit

TLIG: My eighth edit, when I realized the dialogue website was self-referenced

TLIG: Sasanack's first edit

TLIG: Sasanack's second edit

TLIG: My ninth edit

TLIG: Sasanack's third edit

This is the situation as of this writing. Oct13 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified them? I'm going out the door so won't, but they are WP:SPAs and others have had problems with that. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how if they don't have userpages. Oct13 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the two editors on your behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope this can be resolved as soon as possible. Oct13 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot pretend to understand the workings of Misplaced Pages but the situation being referred to above is absurd! If anyone is vandalising the article it is 'Oct13'. He clearly is wanting to portray the True Life in God messages in a negative way and is deleting anything positive. The page at the moment is verging on the libellous and so I will re-insert the accurate information about the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican.Sasanack (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a better website for the dialogue. Don't use a self-published or self-referenced website. By the way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated, in the documents referenced in the article under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, that a dialogue took place between Vassula and itself ("A calm, attentive examination of the entire question...the fact that the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden's later writings..."); so I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article, I'm just against bad websites being referenced. Oct13 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article". So you don't object to me copying the dialogue itself into Misplaced Pages??? The dialogue has never been published by the Vatican and is never published by third parties because there is so much hatred to Vassula. Yet, as you are aware, the dialogue took place. So how does Misplaced Pages deal with this problem if people like yourself object to 'bad websites' being used for reference. I would like to point out that the website in question is owned and produced by the author of a book on prophecy published by Oxford University Press and with a foreward by Pope Benedict.Sasanack (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just find another website, please. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The links for the two editors being discussed here are incorrect. The correct links are as follows:

• Sasanack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arkatakor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting subject matter. Poor article. I haven't gotten to the supposed "vandalism" yet, but I do note that in what you called above your fifth edit you added this link, for instance, which is obviously not a reliable source. I also noted poor paraphrasing from Christian Prophecy – the Post Biblical Tradition; the phrase about her handwriting, which you kept from an earlier version, is not to be found in that book (AFAIK) but your paragraph suggested that it was. I'll have to look further, but for now it seems to me that this is a matter that should be dealt with by rigorous editing, before admins with block buttons get thrown onto it. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, can someone look at File:VassulaRyden.jpg and tell me when this 72-year old woman was supposed to look like this? Or is this simply a miracle? Drmies (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I copied the information about Christian Prophecy and antiochian.org from the Vassula Ryden article. But I didn't know they were unreliable sources. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As for how Ryden looks: Cosmetics and surgery can go a long way. Oct13 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The clothing and hairstyle (and the underlying tone of the photograph) point to a date for our main photograph of ca. 1975-80, when she would have been in her thirties. More importantly, this article is not well-referenced. The main reference is a primary source, Sasanack, and although that would be fine (even preferable) for an essay or thesis, it's not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages requires that articles be referenced to reliable, totally independent third parties - newspapers, magazines, reviews, scholarly journals, even TV or radio programs or independent websites with editorial control. The True Life website is not independent and has no independent, uninvolved editorial control, so it's not a reliable source for our purposes. After all, anyone can claim anything about themselves. I could create a website tomorrow claiming that I was - to give a wild example - the rightful Queen of Denmark. That wouldn't make me the Queen of Denmark, and it would be against Misplaced Pages policy for someone to write an article about me using my website as a source. My claim could only be referenced to reliable, uninvolved third parties - a Copenhagen newspaper, for instance, or a scholarly journal of royal genealogy; in either case, those sources would be appropriate. My website would not. --NellieBly (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, primary sources can be used - but they must be used with caution, and are inappropriate for BLPs for anything more than the barest of factual data. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized, the Vassula Ryden article doesn't link to TLIG. Perhaps TLIG should merge with the article? Oct13 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamism

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

I have to run, so I have to be brief: a week or more ago I blocked User:Wholetruth123 for edit-warring on Islamism--and insertion of argumentative, unsourced, non-neutral et cetera. Well, Wholetruth is back at the same article and seems to have picked up an SPA sidekick, User:Saadasim. I think both should be blocked indefinitely: the one is a POV warrior and the other is sock or meat. But that's just my opinion, man. I'd like it if someone could look into it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Drmies

I have placed my pov in talk. My edits are simply flagging that the term islamism is itself non-neutral and is resented by Muslims just as the prior term Mohamadanism. I have not deleted any references simply added them so user can see alternate pov.

simply banning people without even bothering to respond to their talk comments is unfair

wt

Wholetruth123 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block, Black Kite.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Blocked Wholetruth for a week for continuing editwar after block, blocked Saadasim indef as loudly quacking sock. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded sanction and possible admin tools abuse

I come here, gentleman, to report a sanction that was imposed to me by Admin WGFinley at this thread (section FkpCascais). I was abusively topic baned for 6 months without even one single diff of mine being presented to me demonstrating any violation of policy by me. I was clearly sanctioned for tendentious editing, as indicated in my talk page (User_talk:FkpCascais#Arbitration_Enforcement), with the, I dare to say, curiosity, of me not having made a single edit in the article in question (!!!). I will present you all my actions chronologically:

• There is a dispute going on between other editors at an article which I have under my watchlist, Yugoslav Partisans. I do not take part in the editing of the article, however I contribute by promoting discussion between the two sides, as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute, asking the editors to focus on sources and article content. In the meantime, Causa sui protected the article for 3 days.
• I objected the insertion of disputed, unsourced text (sources did not contained what was being edited). I analised and exposed the sources, but, despite the users admited that there were problems with the sources, they limited to announce that they will bring sources. I asked for those sources, but they were intentionally not being provided, in order to avoid discussion (because they came to be the same ones which were already discussed in another article and strong concerns were expressed by other users, namelly User:Nuujinn). The article was protected for 3 days by Causa sui however the users were clearly gaming the system by avoiding discussion and waiting for the protection to expire so they could restore the same disputed content.
• I made a report, here, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling_and_disruptive_behavior_in_discussion, expecting to obtain admin help and assistance so a consensus could be reached, however, after one first positive intervention from someone non-involved, condemning the attitute of the other users, Admin Animate, a user which numerous times intervened "saving" DIREKTOR at reports in the past, did the same as allways, and even worste, missinformed about the sources having been already presented. I reacted a bit rough, and I exposed that no sources had been brought to the discussion, however, he insisted in a second comment missinforming again and doing the best to turn that into a boomerang to me.
• Surprised by such an irresponsable behavior from Animate, I opened a thread at Jimbo talk page asking for advice about that specific admin and his problematic intervantions, diff.
• In the meantime, as the protection time at the article was almost expiring, and no progress was archived at the discussion, I asked Causa sui to expand protection, however he declined my request leaving a note at the discussion about, in his own words, "the value of the discussion", as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Protection. Afterwords, despite my efforts, no progress was made at the discussion, and it took only 5 hours for DIREKTOR to restore the edit warring inserting the same unsourced and disputed nationallistically based text (with no new sources, but the same old ones which they even admited that were wrong for that edit).
• After that, and after seing that no admin was taking attention of the case and my concerns, I don´t revert, I don´t edit, I continue discussing for a while, and I simply take a break and remove myself completelly.
• During the following weeks, one of the users makes an effort to improve the sources, while another one, PRODUCER, starts a full scale campaign to get me permanently removed, first with one ANI report and, after that one failed, by recomendation of the "friendly" advisor Animate, he took it to WP:AE (section FkpCascais).

I defended myself and I allways favoured discussion and dispute resolution, as clear in all my interventions, article discussions and reports included, I kept this attitude troughout the episode. By then, it had already passed a couple of weeks since my last comment at that discussion. And after a while I am surprisengly sanctioned by a 6 months topic ban. The ban is based on Misplaced Pages:TE and Misplaced Pages:FORUMSHOP. They also provide some backing by the fact that I had been sanctioned to a 1RR/48 hours limit in another strange thread, in which 2 reverts and 1 edit were considered edit-warring while 4 clear reverts were ignored to the other side, with the fact that at that thread I was sanctioned without even having been noteced about the thread, so I had no chance to defend myself. Admin User:GiantSnowman expressed concerns about it at that time, but no correction of the sanction was made, but neither I bothered to appeal, as I am not an edit-warrior, and that sanction was really no pain for me, and it passed to me totally unnoteced. GiantSnowman also informed EdJohnston about it recently during this episode, as seen at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#FkpCascais.

But, having one unfair sanction is tolerable, but a second one not backed by one single diff is not (and all my problems were allways related to one same user, the 14 times blocked DIREKTOR). This sanction I am complaining here clearly intervened at the dispute as I was the only active participant from my side, and the 3 other users were clearly benefitiated with the admin action, without saying that their actions, some of which are sanctionable and I provided diffs, were ignored. To make things worste, I explained all in detail to the sanction imposing admin WGFinley, providing all the diffs (see section "Please"), and I informed EdJohnston about the thread, as he was the one who backed and "composed" the ground for the sanction. WGFinley was abscent for days, and in the meantime I explained all to EdJohnston at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#WP:AE.

What I need to stress out here is that both admins, WGFinley and EdJohnston, were informed by me of all events, and I provided them all the necessary diffs. Both were informed that I did not edited the article, so the Misplaced Pages:TE is badly applied here, and also that I never doubled any thread anywhere, so the charge of Misplaced Pages:FORUMSHOP is also hardly understandable. A hard 6 months sanction is backed on what? I beleaved that they were missguided and I hoped that after clearing all out they will rectify they decition, however I was deeply disapointed when I saw an attitude of further excuses from both of them. The excuses can be seen in their answers, and they go from charging me for the lenght of one RfM in which I was participant, passing by "disliking" a thread of mine complaining about a fellow admin, to the another absurdity of trying to back the forumshopping charge with the excuse that I discusses the sanction at the talk pages of both of them. Each time I got to demonstrate a point, they simply avoided facts and ignored my arguments and questions.

They both had no good-faith towards me, they provided no diffs to back their accusations, they failed to clearly demonstrate any breaking of any policy by me, they directly favoured one side of the dispute, and to top it, they clearly attributed me a punitive sanction, as I was innactive for 2 weeks at the dispute by the time they sanctioned me. Seing things back now, Animate, was clearly resented for having exposed him for lying on ANI report, he recomended WP:AE after seing that at ANI there was no possibility to "punish me", and discretely, step-by-step, WGFinley and EdJohnston cooked a 6 months sanction without having one clear charge against me. That is clearly admin abuse in my view, and I am asking here for the sanction of mine to be lifted, and the two admins to be worned against this kind of revengfull action. FkpCascais (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards