Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 23 July 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 27 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 25 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 73 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

User:Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs)

Can someone tell me what exactly is this user doing? I've been looking over his history and he's taking a lot of non-existent pages and making them into redirects. Especially his edit summary is impossible to decipher. All I guess by this is that he's doing some sort of google bomb in association with these terms and his edits goes back years. Judging by his talk history, there hasn't been much notice at all about this habit. ViriiK (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is it you want an admin to do here exactly? You don't appear to have tried simply asking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at his edit history. I'm guessing he's manipulating wikipedia to his advantage to implement some sort of Google bomb or something similar. ViriiK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While his edit summaries are incomprehensible, the redirects themselves look good to me. Have you tried contacting the editor? I've notified him of this discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should have been brought up with the user before running to ANI with it, but if garbage like this and this and this is not SEO then I don't know what it is. See User talk:Hopiakuta/ index Samantha Geimer Lot Elizabeth Ann Smart Gilmour Deon Baptiste Ian Baptiste Emmett Louis Till Stanley Ann Dunham Anneke Frank Annele Frank Charles Augustus Lindbergh, which is the user's talk page before it was moved to a hidden sub-page in May. Nearly every edit since the middle of 2007 has been like this.

Is this something like the Sven70 situation? It looks that way, except there was no problem with Sven's articlespace edits, while these ones are indistinguishable from SEO spam to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Treat me like I'm dumb. I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages for years and I've read people's edit history which this was just the first time I've seen this long list of incomprehensible changes in the edit reasons. I felt like there was some motive behind it like a google bomb or some form of SEO manipulation since the edit reasons do have links to the articles or redirects. ViriiK (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting some time, leaving a note with Xeno, who at one point was mentoring said user and might be able to shed light on this. - Penwhale | 11:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You make up fantasy crimes that are not supported by evidence, then delete honest questions.

You have even made Uunartoq_Qeqertaq inhabited, which is absolute nonsense.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I never made up any "fantasy crimes". I simply said that your edit history is incomprehensible and it warranted my suspicion that there was some motive behind your edit reasons. As for "Uunartoq Qeqertaq" where did I do that? It never was inhabited in its entire history so it never was deserted in the first place. How can you desert something if no one has lived there permanently? ViriiK (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Penwhale:) Xeno seems to be inactive; I asked them about this some time ago (User talk:Xeno/Archive 29#Confusing edits by Hopiakuta) and received no response. In view of talk page contributions that are ... inscrutable ... at best, maybe a preventative block is appropriate? If only because Hopiakuta appears unable to meaningfully communicate with others, which isn't good for a collaborative project like ours.  Sandstein  11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason how I came across you was because of http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stericycle&action=history where you made these modifications http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stericycle&diff=502742089&oldid=502714710 that made no sense whatsoever. The company, Stericycle, has nothing to do with any of these categories. Can you explain how you come to these conclusions? ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A desert island is uninhabited island is an island that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans. Uninhabited islands are often used in movies or stories about shipwrecked people, and are also used as stereotypes for the idea of "paradise". Some uninhabited islands are protected as nature reserves and some are privately owned. Devon Island in Canada is claimed to be the largest uninhabited island in the world.

Small coral atolls or islands usually have no source of fresh water, but at times a fresh water lens (Ghyben-Herzberg lens) can be reached with a well.

Collaborative fraud.

I do not need to copy them all; this is from google:

Report: Romney made millions from investing in abortion related firm

article.wn.com/.../Report_Romney_made_millions_from_investing_i...

Jul 3, 2012 – Romney Invested In Abortion Cleanup Company Stericycle ..... $100000 and $250000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't answer my question on the Stericycle changes. The modifications you made to Stericycle specifically with those categories did not belong there nor was there a valid reason to do so. Also I reverted the changes from that IP address regarding Stericycle because Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. WP:NOT#NEWS As for "Desert Island", I'm talking about this change I made specifically because you made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Desert_island&diff=502406239&oldid=492458336 which you happened to include some non-related article's discussion on an already deleted article. I don't care about the whole "desert island" (although you just answered your own question but I can say that this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE). I'm calling into question how do you come to bring unrelated stuff into the talk pages or any article anywhere on wikipedia? Doing investigation of my own, I assume you own a site called altacalifernia.com and altacaliferne.com which thankfully is broken although your name is implicated in the broken links. Chrome actually prevents me from going via to the redirect site but in the link it says var/chroot/home/content/h/o/p/hopiaku/html/htttp://reltime2012.ru/frunleh?9 However had it properly worked Chrome actually let me visited the site, it redirects I would have been sent to a malware website. I'm suspecting that you are doing SEO manipulation on google or some other website to redirect users to malware websites. ViriiK (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is too convoluted & I have not the slightest knowledge how to do most of what you have described, let alone the intent.

that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't own these websites despite the fact you linked them in your talk pages (which I've removed) but are now malware redirects? ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, a few minutes looking at this user's 'contributions' reveals that regardless of the motivation for making them, they are gibberish. On that basis, a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE looks a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out what is behind this is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Egads. Block this nonsensical user now so that the cleanup can begin, i.e. "Condo Rice" redirects to Condoleeza Rice, "Mars Won" to Mars One, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He also has the following sockpuppet accounts which are: User:persina & User:Kutahopia ViriiK (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither account seems to have been used since 2007. I suspect they were never intended for socking - they should likewise be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is the only relevant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I would also cite the case of WP:ELNO because his sites which he's linked (all of which I have removed) were redirects to malware websites. He can't simply claim that he doesn't own them since the registration is still intact and not going to expire until 2013. The links were inserted in his sockpuppet account & his own account including external wikipedia sites. See: , , , ViriiK (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his alternate accounts indefinitely because the above contributions show that they lack the ability to communicate (and, at least to an extent, edit) meaningfully.  Sandstein  13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may comment in place of Xeno, as I followed some of the mentoring he has done with Hopiakuta at the time. Hopiakuta is a user with good faith, who is suffering form some kind of disability. If I remember correctly, Myofascial pain syndrome, probably blindness - and maybe more. He seems to be using outdated assistive technologies. It's very difficult for him to participate, but he seems to be attached to it very much.

I understand your choice to ban this user, as collaboration with him is difficult. But I fear it might be a harsh decision for him. The least thing to do would be to treat him as a person with good faith, and not a vandal. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block. I attempted to communicate with this user in the past and they not only ignored me, but removed their talk page history by moving their talk page to this ridiculous title. This suggests unwillingness to edit helpfully (or at least incompetence), but the links to malware suggest malice. How exactly do you accidentally link to malware sites? Even if somehow this is all an innocent misunderstanding due to their disability, Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and their disruptive editing should not be allowed to continue.-RunningOnBrains 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall any links to malware in previous AN/I threads or in my previous "interactions" with him. Perhaps his computer is infected. Otherwise, I believe the situation is unchanged from that point, in which (IIRC) close monitoring and mentoring was recommended, essentially per WP:COMPETENCE. If mentoring isn't working I see no other choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't see any other solution than to block him at the moment. The mentoring seemed to work as long as Xeno was around. If I was near from Hopiakuta in real life I would do the mentoring, or do something to help, as I have experience in the field. But from a distance, and through the obscure Misplaced Pages discussion system, it seems hardly feasible to me. I feel sad for him, but can't do much. Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms, and it is quite possible (likely even) that these are two different people, but the behavior of creating meaningless redirects is exactly what Bowei Huang (and all of his incarnations) eventually got indeffed/banned for. I think his most recent account was User:Bowei Huang 2, which clearly shows the redirect creation situation. Now, something in the patterns of speech doesn't match exactly for me, so I'm not convinced of the connection, but given the similar MOs here, I thought it worthwhile to bring up. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron32 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it could be, but I'm getting the same sense that the communication styles aren't quite a fit. The other banned user I can think of is Shakinglord, as I remember at least one of his socks going around creating redirects like Bling Crosby, but that doesn't quite seem like a match either. In short, you might be onto something, but I have the same pangs of doubt as you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me isn't really the redirects: it's the addition of nonsensical "similar" words to see also sections, the way that all edit summaries consist exclusively of these chains of mechanically similar words, and that nearly all other edits (stretching back for years with seemingly no break) are completely incomprehensible garbage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Though I haven't currently got the time to go back through the AN/AN/I archives to link to diffs, I've got to say I am struck by the decrease in compassion, empathy, and AGF displayed in this forum. In earlier discussions, while editors and admins were equally conflicted about what the best course of action might be, at least they showed some desire to help this user work within WP policies. Earlier discussions took into account not only Hopiakuta's unknown disabilities, but also the ancient technologies he's forced to use; editors actually tried to conceive of workarounds and assists for him, all with the goal of making it possible for him to continue editing. Now, even though he hasn't been brought up here for a while, he's immediately accused of being a bad-faith user, a vandal, a sock, or some sort of evil entity. His contributions, rather than being viewed through the lens of his own experiences and abilities, are immediately disparaged as "garbage" and "gibberish". Even if these contributions are NOT up to article standards, the fact remains that they are good-faith contributions from a good-faith user; even if we can't keep them, they represent effort on his part (probably more effort than we can even know) and shouldn't be mocked or insulted. I'm not saying Hopiakuta is likely to become a model editor; sadly, I'll even concede that his combined challenges may make it impossible for him to continue editing at all. But there's no reason at all to make hostile assumptions about his intent, nor to disparage or dismiss his efforts at contributing. I believe there's a very strong connection between the kind of baseline hostility level shown here and the slow hemmorhage of established contributors; fortunately for all concerned, I haven't got time to go on about THAT, either. But show some compassion, people. (And Dodoiste, thank you.) GJC 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not therapy and Competence is required. Helping out fellow users is laudable, and something I do whenever possible, but we're not here to hold hands or enable the disadvantaged, we're here to build an encyclopedia. If smart people proceeding from a stance of assuming good faith cannot make heads or tails of what an editor is saying, then the editor shouldn't be contributing here, because the net result is indistinguishable from vandalism or trolling. I'm sorry if that's rude or appears to be lacking in compassion, but that's just the way it must be. Our energy needs to go into writing and improving an encyclopedia, not into providing social services to the disabled. If the latter is what one is interested in, there are any number of worthy projects and organizations one can work with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'll re-read what I posted, you'll find that I did not suggest that anyone "hold hands", "provide social services", or anything else along those lines, nor did I contradict either Misplaced Pages is not therapy or Competence is required.

What I DID suggest was that we stop implying bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism, trollery, malice, Googlebombing, SEO manipulation, and complicity in the downfall of Western civilization; and instead see this for what it is: a good-faith user who, for a combination of reasons, seems unable to make encyclopedic contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am not saying that we must accept contributions that the majority of readers would find difficult to comprehend; I am not saying that this user should be coddled, babied, or condescended to (in fact, if I recall correctly, that's like a brief catalog of ways to piss this user off.) What I -AM- saying is, just because you don't understand someone, that doesn't mean that person is malicious; it's always better to assume good intentions even if the result falls short of your standards; don't accuse people til you have SOLID evidence; and if you have to "fire" an editor, there's no need to parade along behind him as he leaves, telling him his contributions were "garbage". In other words: be kind. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing to do. GJC 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock this user. They have been editing in good faith since 2006. Every year or so, a user like ViriiK comes around and starts wondering what is going on without knowing the backstory and tries to get Hopiakuta blocked because the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it. That's very sad, but typical of human nature. Hopiakuta's contribution history shows that the user has made constructive edits for six years now. The "let's block first and then find out what's going on" reaction is really not appropriate. Please do the due diligence. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-gnoming for half a decade doesn't outweigh... what ever this sort of thing is, sorry. There's a fundamental lack of an capability to communicate here, and it is ridiculous to demand that an entire project bend backwards to cater to one person in this manner. Life sucks. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war & resulting personal attacks

I submitted a dispute resolution request here regarding an issue on List of countries by beer consumption per capita. Shortly thereafter one of the editors involved made a pointed comment about my personal life. I removed the attack and another editor, whose edits are borderline meatpuppetry, reverted my removal. I reverted again and the orginal editor restored the talk page yet again . This is not the first time these two have gone 1-2-1 with edits/reverts on this particular wiki . It's worth noting (as I did in my request for dispute resolution) that the debate is over whether or not to sort the list of beer consumed per capita alphabetically or by volume consumed. Each is easily sorted, but there seems to be a lack of good faith for the "average reader's" ability to discern how to best do that. The issue started within the past two days, altering an article that had been established for about six years. All of that aside, the #1 concern I have is that these two editors are going 1-2-1 with reverts to avoid 3RR, throwing out personal attacks needlessly, and canvasing across unrelated wikis looking for support. Erikeltic 02:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is always astonishing to me how much emotion people can invest in issues that are so utterly trivial. Looie496 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this is something well noted in all walks of life. See Parkinson's Law of Triviality and Sayre's law. --Jayron32 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think this discussion was the latest of many to top 300,000 kb of text? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It was not a personal attack by Jbening. It was a question. See diff. I have not been canvassing. I have been leaving the {{rank order}} template on various list and table pages, or their talk pages, for awhile now. The other issues belong on the article talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, it was a bit over the line. Casting aspersions in question form is still casting aspersions, and saying it could only have one result: to insult the recipient of the question. It wasn't the worst thing I've read at Misplaced Pages today, but in general it is best to avoid personalizing discussions like that. It only serves to steer the discussion off course, and minimize the chance of having a satisfactory result. Simply put: don't do things like that, because it makes it harder to work collegially with others. --Jayron32 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, for what it's worth, I think coming to the drama boards for such a small thing is, as Erikeltic would say, "NONSENSE". Note his use of capital letters. But what do I know. ;) --Timeshifter (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a personal attack and saying an edit is nonsense. Erikeltic 01:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the whole paragraph that Jbening wrote that contains the sentence in question (in italics):

Erikeltic, can I ask you please to dial it back a bit? I've tried to be civil in all my comments, even though I do confess to some frustration that it doesn't seem like you're hearing what I'm saying, while you keep coming out both guns blazing in your replies. Absolute nonsense? It was an attempt to be helpful. If you disagree with it, fine. I'm not wedded to it. But I think you're being a bit over the top in calling it absolute nonsense. Are you this way with your friends, or only online?

Out of context, it may be as Jayron32, the admin, said. That is if you stretch it as far as possible, this may be "casting aspersions". But that even that is far from a personal attack. In context it is not remotely a personal attack or even casting aspersions. It is about as civil as one can be in pointing out another person's tone. Admins should know better than to take things out of context. I think this lack of admin ability to understand and deal with both personal disputes and content disputes is why there are more articles, but less editors. I can understand why average editors may get lost in all the disputes, but I do not see admins getting to the meat of issues by dealing with the content disputes. But that is a long story with many causes. See my link. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User Erikeltic has escalated to removing talk page comments

It seems User:Erikeltic is now tag-teaming with User:Chipmunkdavis in removing my talk page comments on various page. This is a violation of WP:Talk. Specifically, they are removing a banner I created saying that it only belongs on articles. {{rank order}}. I mean I created the banner, and I know where I want to put it. I have been putting it on talk pages when people remove it from articles. Many people will not notice talk page banners, and so that is why I put it first on the article. If someone removes it from the article, then I know at least someone is probably also paying attention to the talk page. So I put it there to initiate discussion. I put it in a new talk section too so that discussion is possible. User:Erikeltic is blocking this discussion from happening. This is more of his pattern of obstruction. He has driven away Jbening from further editing of List of countries by beer consumption per capita. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the talk pages involved:

Talk:List of national capitals by population

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area‎

I notified both of the above-mentioned users. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer and gets but one response, so here it is. Editor Timeshifter and I had an encounter on another article. I look at his recent contribs and noticed that he was still canvassing and disrupting other articles to make a point about the first wiki. I reverted two of these edits, both of which were inappropriate templates that didn't belong on a talk page. He added no comments at all, just templates that didn't belong where he stuck them. That's it... the end. Erikeltic 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously did not read or understand my reply concerning canvassing higher up. I think this illustrates the whole problem. And as for getting only one response, I would point out that it was you that started this whole thread on the drama boards. Over a trivial one-sentence remark from Jbening. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm only responding to your "removing talk page comments" silliness once. I've done that. Responding to the reasons we're here initially is quite different. The second reason I came to ANI was because you and another editor were going 1-2-1 on reverts and perpetuating an edit war. And yeah... I read you reply, I don't accept it. Creating your own template about sorting and then posting said template across a bunch of articles is, IMHO, canvassing and exceedingly pointy when you're in a "discussion" about sorting elsewhere. Erikeltic 10:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? As I said, I have been posting {{rank order}} for awhile now. Well before our interactions. See WP:CANVAS. That tag does not mention our interactions. Maybe it is a vast plot to undermine the reality distortion field of Misplaced Pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at your contribs, and I concede that you were not canvassing. My apologies. However, you were still engaging in an edit war and doing reverts 1-2-1 over ownership issues. Are you willing to no longer do that type of thing, except in cases of gross vandalism? Make that promise and I'll drop the ANI here and now. Erikeltic 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You were the one doing the reverts of the only editor (Jbening) to have done a major update of the list in a long time. There have been no reverts since your revert of Jbening on July 20. See diff. You have driven away Jbening. On July 19 he wrote this in reply to you: "Also, you went 15 months without doing anything about the major update you noted the need for back in February, 2011, which doesn't bode well. But looking back over the number of words spent discussing this piece of triviata, I grow weary, so I think I'm going to check out. Maybe I'll have a look at the page after the 2011 numbers come out, to see if you or anyone else has actually updated the table. Cheers!" --Timeshifter (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll buy you a beer and we'll drop it. The ANI discussion here has nothing (in my opinion) to do with the content. My issue was with your actions during that dispute. I will consider the matter closed. I only hope that in the future it doesn't happen. Erikeltic 10:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake Admin?

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

User making some rather strange comments on a Talk page, claiming to be an admin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that he has placed a {{subst:User admin}} in his signature, which is against WP:SIGN to begin with. However, the bigger concern is that he is trying to impersonate an administrator. I have removed the subst'd userbox from his signature and the top four misleading userboxes on his userpage. --MuZemike 23:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Update! They have released a statement at User talk:PoppingCorns#Official reaction. I think this is resolved. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by Beeblebrox on the editor's talk page, it looks to me like this editor simply copy-pasted a bunch of userboxes from some admin's user page -- all those userboxes showed up at the same moment. Even so, past experience says an editor who behaves this erratically is destined to be indef'ed within the very near future. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since they included when he was made an admin, it was easy to determine that he copied the page from Nightscream. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Especially since one of PC's userboxes said to contact him by "Leave a message here". Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm the editor concerned apparently inherited the account with their laptop (with the blessing of the former owner but still....) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He reminds me of CrustyPores = LustyRoars, bless him. Just sayin' Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know, he does me as well. As do the other new accounts on that IP - User:StrikingSimilarity and User:ShanklyMyDear User:Bonfondles and User:RugitVigoureux --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Snow closure?

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Rollbacker_and_Reviewer_Cabal seems to be an obvious snowball closure. Any admin have the balls to close this thing? Ten Pound Hammer • 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:SNOW. Kim Dent-Brown 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
   1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
   2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
   3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed#User:Olenglishaway

Take a look at ongoing thread which may require attention on poor judgement and very bad adminship of User:GB_fan. Thanks! Olenglishaway (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GB fan should have checked that User:OlEnglish had made the edit supposedly confirming the alt account, but since I've already blocked User:Olenglishaway I don't think there is really anything to see here. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And I just hardened the block. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah - thanks for that! SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Closed WP:PERM/C request. (NAC) ⇒TAP 17:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake. GB fan 17:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, Thanks for blocking as I had already requested a harder block.But, My point is that I had played with system to insure that All admin task is correctly done.It's all safe now because it was a mock drill.But, what if a real vandal just impersonated another senior contributor and passed safely through confirmed rights and vandalized massively? What if same thing happens at rollback rights or any other flags? What about massive vandalism via Huggle? It would be damn harder to revert all those edits.I'm sure that You have learned a lesson to double check every request.Thanks.59.161.16.210 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the minimal privileges that come with Confirmed status, this is just a silly waste of admin time. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, that was definitely not me. But I have strong suspicions on who it might have been. -- œ 17:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Think about what if vandal was able to pass through rollback just like this? 59.161.16.210 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Think about WP:Block evasion max.. you only had 1 month to do.. now your main account can be blocked indefinitely, nice going. -- œ 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Somce this IP has admitted to being the engineer of this " breaching experiment" I have blocked it as well Misplaced Pages is not a toy and it is almost certain this is some sort of returning blocked user or troll. I think we have wasted enough time on their games. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I started a SPI before the block on Maxviwe. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxviwe. Could be useful. Thanks! ⇒TAP 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Confirmed by CheckUser; Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxviwe. ⇒TAP 18:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean  Likely? T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm; yep. ⇒TAP 18:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

MPK Engin­eering

For some reasons the non-existing page MPK Engin­eering is restricted for administrators only. As an engineering subsidiary of Itera, I would like to redirect this page to the Itera article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's very odd. As far as I can see, the page has never existed, nor been protected. Still, I have created it. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably the title blacklist. Hut 8.5 21:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless I've forgotten how my regex tester works, it doesn't match anything on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Fæ has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.
2. Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.
3. As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.
4. For numerous violations of Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
5. For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Misplaced Pages. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment.
6. Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Misplaced Pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

NewtonGeek - Arbcom block

We're done here; closing this one for the same reason as the ANI one. WT:AC is thataway. --Rschen7754 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I posted this elsewhere to allow Arbcom the opportunity to respond. I didn't expect a response and didn't get one, so here we are, as I planned to do anyways.

There was a discussion of privacy going on at the Fae case and I thought the parallels were interesting in relation to NewtonGeek's block. Of course, at least some of NG's privacy was already given away by Secretlondon way back when at the Factseducado SPI event. Now, it can't be confirmed whether the bureaucrat NG was in contact with was Secretlondon (unless Secretlondon would like to confirm it), but it can be highly assumed. Especially considering that, when asked by the bureaucrat whether certain information could be revealed in the SPI, NG said no, but then suddenly Secretlondon is at the SPI revealing said info anyways. Nice bureaucrats we have here.

Onto the current events regarding NG. It seems that because of the past information leak regarding NG and Factseducado, members of Wikipediocracy found out the real identity of NG and Factseducado (with later repeated leaking of information thanks to Jayen and DracoEssentialis not helping, though Elen fixed the leak Jayen had purposefully made). Around the same time frame as NG leaving Wikipediocracy, spam emails started arriving, computer viruses, and worse computer issues began happening, not to mention continued discussion on Wikipediocracy about NG's real identity and harassing comments. Thus, for the past few weeks, NG has been in email contact with Arbcom about the issues in relation to WO members and the continued referencing of personal information on Wikipediocracy (mostly because of Kohs and HRIP7).

Now, as for the block. The reasons are interesting. Trolling is the main one given, primarily because NG was advised to stop commenting on the Fae case, considering the involvement of certain Wikipediocracy members that then have a negative involvement with NG. But NG didn't stop commenting and NG didn't have to. NG had also found out a significant amount of information in relation to the harassment of Fae, including WO users looking for things to mock him for from his 1990's histories and the doxing of any account revealed to be related to him (which is likely why he doesn't want to reveal certain accounts publicly). There's no rule that NG had to stop being involved anyways without being ordered to and Arbcom could have quite easily just kicked NG specifically out of the talk page if they wanted to. Instead, they indefinitely blocked NG. Now, ignoring the block reason and all the stuff before it became an Arbcom block, that's all a sideshow, why exactly was NG blocked? Because "trolling" definitely doesn't fall under Arbcom block standards. I'm sure someone will bring up checkuser data, as was commented on at the ANI discussion. But this must be wrong! Because the results of a checkuser are already well known, in fact, that is related to the private information that was leaked. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado are well, well known and were already discussed far in the past. So what checkuser data could there possibly be? If there was socking issues, that would have been pointed out, but it wasn't.

So, what exactly is the background for such a block? "Trolling and competency"? As has been pointed out by multiple users, NG was one of the most coherent commenters on this talk page, making very pointed and accurate comments. and being a rather good help to revealing the harassment campaign against Fae. And, regardless, neither of the listed reasons fall under an Arbcom block at all, so it should be up to the community on whether the block is kept. So what really is going on here? Silverseren 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Roger Davis' block rationale. It's an ArbCom block "based in part on Checkuser data". I'd suggest that you take this up with Roger. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

But the checkuser data is already known. From the last checkuser. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado was already explained, look at NG's block log. And if there was a sockpuppet issue, then that should have been stated. What other kind of checkuser data could there possibly be? Silverseren 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see that this has also been discussed, in considerable depth, at WP:ANI#Request review of block by arbitrator Risker. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by also raising it here now that thread as been closed. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on ANI didn't discuss it as an Arbcom block, because that was only enacted at the end, with no true reason why. There's no evidence for why a checkuser would reveal anything. Silverseren 01:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't my reading of the thread. Your claim at the start of this thread that ArbCom didn't engage in that discussion is baseless - I see that several arbitrators commented there, and that there was also discussion of the block on the editor's talk page. There was also general (though not universal) support for the block from the editors who commented at ANI, so the community has in fact decided to uphold the block (not that this actually matters given that its an ArbCom block, and so would need to be appealed through ArbCom's procedures). This seems to be a case where WP:STICK and WP:WALK applies. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While the block by Risker was not in line with policy, the block by Roger (given the nature of ArbCom) was in line with policy. Is this block final? I'm not terribly familiar with how ArbCom works. My impression would be that if you have a question for ArbCom, you would raise it on a page related to them, and if you can't find a satisfactory answer there, you might take it to Jimbo or WMF, if it is worth pursuing to that point. Considering that ArbCom has information we do not, I cannot second-guess their rationale and have to take it on face value that it was a proper block. If ArbCom at some point is found to be genuinely acting in bad faith, then we have a problem, but at present, their assertion of a block is sufficient for me to consider it a valid action. -- Avanu (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You must count differently than me, I see far more people opposing the block than supporting it. So, where would be the place to appeal this then? The Amendments page? Silverseren 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing this again. Please do not re-open it. The user was blocked by the Arbitration Committee and administrators cannot do anything about that. Please refer to the ArbCom block template and the Committee itself for further instruction. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WT:AC doesn't appear to be for that. Where's the proper place to discuss this? Silverseren 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek is presumably an adult, therefore he can handle his appeals on his own, and I believe Risker or others have noted that they and he have been in e-mail communication regarding this. So, perhaps it'd be better all around if you find another hobby. No one here has appointed you some sort of wiki-public defender. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I am more or less NewtonGeek's appointed appealer anyways, for the mere fact that Arbcom is purposefully not responding to him or explaining why he was blocked beyond "trolling". Of course, there were only 2 to three responses from Arbcom anyways, keeping in track with their usual method of blocking under "Arbcom block" and then not responding to emails about it. I'll just go to WT:AC for now and wherever else is necessary after that. Silverseren 01:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) On further reflection, if you really want a full appeal, possibly an amendment/clarification/arbitration request. But I warn you that this is just going to cause drama, and your request will probably be declined. I accept no responsibility for any consequences if you go this route. WP:STICK. I endorse Tarc's comments above, as well. --Rschen7754 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, i'm not going to sit by and allow a user to be wrongfully blocked without even a proper explanation just because we're all supposed to be afraid of Arbcom and not question them. Silverseren 01:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussions at WT:AC/N, I don't think that many people feel that ArbCom can't be questioned ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leonid Michelson

I noticed that significant part of Leonid Michelson article is copy-pasted from rumafia. com / person. php?id = 69 (the url should be without spaces). However, I was not able to add this link to the maintenance tag as this site is blacklisted. Beagel (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Leave it out of the space on the tag for it, go back and edit the tag to add it just as plain text. Or put the info on the talkpage, but put the url on as plain text as you have done here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User Yehuda Falk

Yehuda Falk (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

An IP added a deceased notice to Falk's user page. The IP then requested semi-protection of the page. I removed the deceased notice and declined the request per WP:DWG.

My concern is whether more needs to be done to find out if the user in fact died. He didn't edit very much, nor has he edited since February 2012, so it's unlikely anyone here knows him. Should we just wait to see if better confirmation is forthcoming (from his family or colleagues)? (I will continue to monitor his user page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course whenever this happens we all hope it is not true. The crux of the issue, as with anything alse here, is verification. A claim from an IP is not considered verification. He used his real name and identified his places of residence and employment so there should be an obituary forthcoming if he has indeed died. Unless and until we have such verification there shold be no tagging or administrative action taken. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please watchlist WP:ERRORS

Admins: I just got a note on my talk page that response time at WP:ERRORS has been slow. That page exists to correct mistakes on our welcome mat. Please watchlist WP:ERRORS and help us respond quickly. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Name in Biography : Amar Mitra

The wikipedia article on Amar Mitra is on a separate person named Amar Mitra Peddireddy. Amar Mitra is a reputed writer in Bengali and a Sahitya Akademy award winner.

Due to this problem of linking, the link Amar Mitra in List of Sahitya Akademy Winners in Bengali opens up with the Biographical details of Amar Mitra Peddireddy

Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.17.114 (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fixed the references, now you can start the article about the writer.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog