Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 26 March 2013

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

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

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

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

User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others

I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...

• 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
• 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
• 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
• 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
• 86.181.25.153
• 86.161.219.51
• 130.88.114.111
• 87.112.181.7 (unclear whether this is the same person)

If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.

Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.

Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.

Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.

Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this from some months back: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!

I have been an IP editor on Misplaced Pages that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Misplaced Pages to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.

It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Misplaced Pages politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.

It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Misplaced Pages articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!

I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Misplaced Pages to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)

I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.

213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!

The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Misplaced Pages with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Misplaced Pages, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb _words 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As it the way, there are several interrelated issues here. Some of them are about content (what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?). Some of them are about election articles that are prone to vandalism/unhelpful editing from multiple sources in the run-up to elections (should United Kingdom local elections, 2013 be semi-protected for a few months?). I'm uncertain where those issues should be discussed (beyond Talk pages), but would dearly welcome some administrator input.

However, my initial reason to bring this to ANI was about conduct. 81.149.185.174/213.120.148.60/217.41.32.3/81.133.12.45 has been warned 6 times about conduct. There are multiple subsequent AGF violations. Several editors have already tried to tackle this with the IP editor. Is some sort of administrator action now appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For quite some time I've encountered various UKIP supporters who have clearly been trying to push an agenda, ever since UKIP's popularity has begun to increase. The most glaring example has been on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou has also expressed concern about the UKIP bias there, and I have agreed with him. Between Sheffno1, 08aviee, and others, it's difficult to tell who is doing what in these articles. Indeed, it seems as if there is a serious lack of WP:AGF going on, as there are many accusations of those who do not agree with them being members of the Lib Dems, while at the same time they attempt to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I've tried to start a few discussions on the UK Politics Wikiproject, but there hasn't been much of a consensus drawn to the above question that Bondegezou presented: what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?. It seems there is now a disagreement between the opinion polling page (which lists UKIP) and the main election page (which doesn't list UKIP). Of course, I realise this isn't the venue to discuss this issue, but I felt that it's apt to bring it up: if there is no consensus about how UKIP should be represented, it is inevitable that different editors with different views will edit war. – Richard BB 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what I think Richard BB is pointing out is that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has a set of tables reporting opinion polling that now include columns for the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP. Meanwhile, Next United Kingdom general election and United Kingdom local elections, 2013 have infoboxes that include Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems, but not UKIP. However, I don't actually see that as an inconsistency: what should be in a table reporting opinion polls and what should be in an infobox for a forthcoming election are different questions. You see a mismatch like this for many countries, e.g. what parties are listed in the tables at Opinion polling for the next German federal election and what parties are in the infobox at German federal election, 2013. I actually feel the current balance is right.

That said, I agree with Richard BB's broader point of an unresolved question over how to cover UKIP, and that resolving that question is made more difficult by a history of sockpuppets and lack of WP:AGF. Here is the right venue to discuss the latter issue, of editor conduct. Would it be possible to have some administrator action or advice on how to proceed? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for clarifying — you're right. – Richard BB 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't want my input given the past but here is is anyhow: My position is as it was before, in that this election is one of a number of tests in that UKIP have not made that electoral breakthrough at Westminster or council level. I still agree with the decision that was made several months ago in that it is not possible to consider adding UKIP to any non-EU election boxes until after this election! Depending on what the result is, we then consider looking at the 2014 local elections info box. That said, the IPs argument is sound (just not sufficient). In my view we ought to consider mentioning UKIP in the article somehow if they do exceed 2,000 candidates or match/exceed the number of Lib Dem candidates! The problem is how etc, in my view the article is best left as it is until we know the results. If you want to semi-protect the article, I guess I have no objections but the restriction should be lifted on election day at 10:00pm i.e. when voting has ended. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the same person or not, but the problems go on: . Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that as blatant trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind trolling - it is an attack on an editor. I've added the IP to the list at the top of this discussion. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackmane. While it's useful to revert individual instances, they keep happening with such regularity that some further action (be that blocking certain IP addresses or semi-protection) seems in order to me.

Thanks, Emeraude. I've appended a note given some uncertainty as to whether this is the same individual or not. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While I would definitely support semi-protection of the articles (perhaps not the Opinion polling one, as the troubles there are mostly resolved and we regularly get helpful IPs updating it) I think it's against policy to semi-protect a talk page like this, as good faith IPs who wish to suggest genuine changes to the article wouldn't be able to. – Richard BB 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that admins are very loth to protect or semi protect talk pages, especially if the article page is protected as the talk page will then be the only place that helpful anon editors can contribute. As far as can be done, attacks by the various IPs can only be dealt with a liberal application of WP:RBI reserved for trolls. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that any Talk pages should be semi-protected, just certain articles (and then just for limited times, say until after the May local elections). Blocking of some IP addresses seems entirely appropriate.

We keep saying we're all in agreement with each other. How do we move from here to administrator action? Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

87.112.181.7 has now reverted Blackmane's reversion. I have removed the material again. 87.112.181.7 is also removing LGBT references from Prahran, Victoria and Talk:Prahran, Victoria, with something of an edit war developing subsequently. I'm not convinced that 87.112.181.7 is the same IP editor as in the initial complaint, but certainly these actions demonstrate the problem with a number of anonymous editors on articles pertaining to UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a number of the IPs above, I can say categorically that I am not 87.112.181.7 and 130.88.114.111! I can also say that I only appear as 2 of the above IPs! I am not going to tell you which because you are threatening to block! I hope your not proposing to block all the IPs above without knowing who they are whilst accusing them of being the same person! I am also not sheffno1 for the record! Although I have spoken with this editor on another site before, he uses the same logon on other popular site that has a private messaging service.

I notice that Emeraude and the usual suspects have launched a counter attack by sabotaging UKIP's page by adding the following to UKIPs policy section:

In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain.

It is blindingly clear that this paragraph has nothing to do with UKIP policy! May I suggest that this kind of behavior is taken into account! As I have already highlighted, Emeraude has a thing for anti-facism and this is an example of Emeraude trying to make UKIP appear as fascist by branding them racist and xenophobic and making inferences about their supporters. In this case he has used a "study". This type of behavior is even more deplorable than anything I or any of these other editors have done. I and others have merely tried to seek increased inclusion and coverage of UKIP to catch up with reality (I now accept that certain tests need to be passed before that can happen - we've had that debate, outcome accepted). Whereas Emeraude and others have actively politicized the narrative of articles by picking and choosing their sources! Above is just one of a number of examples! I and others have not changed any narrative or tried to paint UKIP or any other party as something it's not. But It seems some other people are trying to have things both ways! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• It may have been misplaced. However, your allegations of Emeraude's actions are inappropriate and also incorrect - there's no mention of fascism in there at all. The study seems perfectly valid to me, I can't tell whether it's reliable or not as it's not my area of expertise, but it seems fairly OK. Picking and choosing sources? Probably to only use those that satisfy WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Lukeno94 but the above text is not appropriate for a POLICY section since it neither lists or elaborates upon any of the party's policies. You clearly have not been to Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Policies and are not aware of Emeraude's edit history. You also seem to be unaware that Xenophobia and Islamophobia are topics that would be of particular interest to someone who states "anti-fascism" as an area of interest. In the UK at least they are often mentioned in the same breath, so this point can not be dismissed in this way. There are 2sides to this issue: This is not merely a case of IP editors wanting to (rightly or wrongly) increase UKIP's coverage but there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the party and compromise Misplaced Pages's neutrality! There is a big difference between changing the amount of coverage a party gets on Misplaced Pages and politicising the narrative of Misplaced Pages's articles. To my mind it is clear which is the more serious of the 2! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um... I thought I agreed that it was in the wrong place? Also, aren't you doing the latter of those two "sins" you list? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for missing that your acknowledgment of the info being in the wrong place. Non the less it is not relevant, we do not seek to site studies about voters from other parties do we? I don't see any other articles with studies as to how many Labour voters live in council houses for example, or how many green party voters are vegetarian, how many Lib Dems supported CND, I could go on. The point is that is not the normal sort of thing to put on a political parties page, especially one that is now widely considered a mainstream party! This is just one example of the unbalanced/non-neutral things that have been written on the page. I have not done anything to sway the narrative to a pro-UKIP stance, so no I haven't committed that said "sin"! All I've sought is to examine the way the party is covered and to argue the case of inclusion to the info box. We have since had a debate and I've accepted the outcome. Non the less despite me having accepted that UKIP will not be added to any info boxes until (at the earliest) we know the results of the May elections! That is a fair and reasonable position to take as 2nd May will be UKIPs 1st national test. Non the less Bondegezou will repeatedly talk down the party on the talk page, hence I (and others) will naturally seek to address that balance by pointing out other facts. Bondegezou seems to take this as if I am not accepting the decision which has already been made! I am accepting and not disputing the decision! So lets just be clear about what I am and what I am not saying and doing! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate place for a peer-reviewed article. It concerns how UKIP policy is seen by supporters. What these IPs want to dois to completely remove something they see as critical of UKIP, their raison d'être throughout.

However, this is all too sily. This discussion was set up (not by me) to look at the appalling behaviour of these anonymous IPs, though it could all be one person. For some reson that I cannot understand (because they refuse to give reason) they have decided to attack me with innuendo, misinformation and lies. All of their efforts amount to personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. We see more examples in the previous comments. They have even sugested - a blatant misrepresentation - that this discussion was set up to examine my actions (Talk:UK Independence Party#Policies on the UKIP talk page: "This issue has now been added to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents .... as it helps to give a sense a sense of balance to that discussion. It serves as an example of how editors such as Emeraude have deliberately politicised the narrative of articles...") I have asked perhaps a dozen times for examples of where I have been less than correct as a Misplaced Pages editor - answer comes there none. I no longer expect such (and, indeed, it would be impossible for them to provide one). Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I could just wade in on this, it does seem to me to be completely the wrong section for something like this (whether its relevant or not). It does not explain or elaborate on party policy, it merely gives insights into who might be voting for the party or who is "likely" or "more likely" to vote for the party! That's not policy, its even a big stretch to call it perception of policy! other editors such as Blue Square Thing have previously proposed a section on "perceptions of the party" or something along those lines. That is the only place that something like this could be appropriately included! I'm not wholeheartedly against it's inclusion but as things stand there is not an appropriate section for this to go in. If Emeraude wants to create one, we can't stop him as it is a peer based review (a somewhat questionable one but wiki policy says its not our place to make those judgements). What we can and must do is prevent the narrative being distorted by having something like this in a policy section, when it has absolutely no place in this section! As for further criticisms about this section, e.g. tax it only seems to state the least attractive elements to someone of a left-wing orientation. It ignores the parts of policy that would appeal to someone who might describe themselves as "left-wing", such as a high tax threshold of £13,000, zero tax(inc NI) on those earning the minimum wage. This is another example of how the narrative has been effected, picking and choosing, being selective about what gets included and what doesn't affects the narrative! That you can not deny! In light of this it seems that the IPs criticisms are justified to at least some degree! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to resolve this additional content dispute. I opened this discussion because of repeated failures of good faith by at least one IP editor. More and more examples have followed. Sheffno, you have only recently returned from a ban because of your own edits. We can better resolve content disputes if we're all following basic Misplaced Pages policies in the first place, like assume good faith, use reliable sources, do not use original research, avoid bias. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss this outright it does have relevance to the discussion, as it has been said above there are 2 sides to this story. That said, while it should be considered, it should be discussed and resolved on the appropriate talk page, this is what I have sought to do. I believe that the creation of a new section is a sensible compromise considering that it was wholly inappropriately placed as even Lukeno94 agreed along with the other IPs and sheffno1. As for sheffno1's conduct, he has served his ban and should be treated as any other editor! Besides the fact that is not the matter up for discussion here! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Sheffno1gunner for two months for sockpuppetry. The IPs have each been given shorter blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For clarification, the sockpuppetry investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013 has concluded that Sheffno1gunner is 213.120.148.60, 81.149.185.174 and others. I opened this discussion suggesting a ban on the grounds of incivility and disruptive editing should be considered. However, a ban on the basis of sockpuppetry has much the same effect. I don't personally see the need for any further action now; we'll see if there is any need to re-visit this issue in the future. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

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

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows: I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie . If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to , undone .

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like and . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that collapsing the block notices was a little overdoing it, but as for the rest, I think it was an improvement. We've had WP:DTTR for a while. I'm more a believer in WP:DTA.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• User has come back, and immediately is warned for making poorly sourced BLP changes: . Not quite the music genre issue, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that someone who is likely not English-first-language might be struggling here to notice the detailed nuance of the 20th template message. It's a pity, and I imagine it'll lead to a block; I wish we could've tried harder to get 'em on track. Sure, 99% of the time it's a waste of effort, but the 1% is gold. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resumed doing same today, see edit history. I reported to AIV as resumption of actions that led to last block. I assume escalating block durations that will probably eventually lead to an indef appears to be the default method of handling this. As I suggested earlier, an indef now, to get his attention, with a well crafted message explaining why what he is doing is wrong and that the block will be rescinded if he indicated understanding would likely be more productive. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he has discovered his talk page and is open to some coaching. See messages on my page here. He is also asking for help on his page here. Looks like a serious attempt to become a better editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about unref'd edits to BLPs. I appreciate they might be trying, but I don't think they're getting it. If it wasn't BLPs, I wouldn't be so bothered. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right but I personally think it is worth it to try for now and cut him a bit of slack. If it doesn't look like he is serious, further action can be taken then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

01:07, 25 March 2013 Toddst1 blocked Headstrong4ever (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: Continued music genre changing - now under false pretense of references) Good or bad, it's happened. so I think we're done here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

AN/TPS-43

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

For about six years, the article AN/TPS-43 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an its talk page Talk:AN/TPS-43 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) have been vandalized by the same person with nonsense "I hate this article, "it is a copyvio" and other stupidity. User:Alexf knows him/her more than me. According to him, if the article and talk page are protected, s/he will move to another page, which is true. All IPs come from Colombia, I don't know if all of them are from Bogotá. Alexf told me he prefers to block them instead of protect the article(s), but blocking them for one year, when they are not static, is not a good move, especially for newbies. I believe that it's enough with this person. Six years doing the same as if this were a play area denotes a more than immature and childish attitude. Is it possible to block the range (I know it is large), or start protecting the articles and talk pages? And officially ban this person from Misplaced Pages? Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any name by which this person is known? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this nut hails from the Medellin area. He has been vandalizing that article adding pictures at random, sometimes nudes or other NSFW for almost 7 years (first vandalism in July 2006). I do not know how a ban would work as he can easily come with other socks or whatever. I now block him on sight. Started at the usual 24/31 hours and so on. He only uses IPs in Colombia, from home (cable modem), then he tried his school IPs, and now he is now using mobile phone IPs when he finds one that is unblocked. When the article was semi-protected, he started doing the same to the article's talk page. I've no idea what his problem is. Whatever the community decides is fine with me. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of having this article in my watchlist seeing nothing constructive in almost 7 years. As for the name, it is not known. Always IPs, same MO. -- Alexf 20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The first account s/he used, as far as I found, is Macallla (talk · contribs) (edits no visible because the account's name was removed from the page, but s/he has no name, all accounts are in red and without a SPI (as basically unneded): , . Perhaps "AN/TPS vandal" is the proper way to refer to him. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Site ban for editor known as Macalla, or "AN/TPS vandal"

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

Per the discussion above, this is to determine if the editor in question has earned a full community ban. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - A classic wasp in the park. Macella has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and his vandalism is incredibly destructive. Enough, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Site ban for editor, 1-year semi-protect for page. This maximizes the chances that he will give up in frustration -- some of his IPs won't work anywhere, all of his IPs won't work on his favorite target. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 years of trolling suggests something not quite right with this editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support just to be clear where I stand. Agree with a year of semi protection as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support More than enough. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Rich Farmbrough, 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
• Support The editor has been performing disruptive editing for a while now. TBrandley 05:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question: How does blocking the original editor resolve this problem? RNealK (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Because their long-term disruptiveness indicates they are not here to improve the encyclopedia, only vandalise and troll, and a community ban allows for the application of revert, block, ignore to their edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support A year at least, but probably not enough. We'll revisit afterwards. -- Alexf 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cross wiki harrasssment

I removed some ramblings made by Profoundpaul (talk · contribs) as per WP:FORUM and issued a standard warning. This caused the editor in question to visit my talk page on the Danish Misplaced Pages and make 14 disruptive edits. What is the policy for such cross-wiki harassment? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can do anything here. Technically, what happens on another language Wiki doesn't carry over here unless they are doing the same thing on multiple wikis, and need a globally locking. Even then, only a WP:Steward can do that. I think you need to contact admin on the Danish Misplaced Pages for action there. There are users who are blocked here on the English Misplaced Pages, yet contribute on other wikis like Commons, as the policies for each are different. If they do something out of policy here, then we can take action, but we literally have no ability to take action nor authority on the Danish Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Dennis. However, we can do something about the editor's behavior here, which has been a problem. Almost all of their edits have been to article talk pages adding personal theses about the subject matter. They have made a handful of article edits, most of which have also been inappropriate and have been reverted. I have left a warning on their talk page about their behavior. Hopefully, they'll stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 added a helpful note on their talk page, and I reminded them of some obvious facts as well. Maybe that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Noting that the editor was blocked for 2 days on dawiki. --Rschen7754 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for sanctions of this editor on the da-wiki, but for their actions here on en-wiki. As can be seen from the contents the disruptive edits on my Danish talk page was very obviously a direct response to my actions here on en-wiki, so this is entirely an en-wiki matter, and I can't see why they should be treated any differently than if the disruptive edits was carried out on my talk page here on en-wiki. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag due to this organization using nationalism and religious fervor in attacking minorities. The user 115.67.197.210 accused me of Hate speech. I wanted the admins to clarify this incident.

Delljvc (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• You need to first take this to the article talk page. I have to admit, I'm stymied as to how an article on Buddhism meets the criteria to have the Fascism template on it, but I'm not editing there. He reverted it out, now it is upon you to leave it out and build a consensus to include it. Adding it back in will likely be seen as edit warring, and open yourself up for sanctions. If you can't build a consensus that Buddhism is Fascism (??), then you leave it out, or take it to WP:DRN if you have a split consensus. This isn't a matter for ANI at this point. As for "hate speech", the IP gave a reasoned argument on your talk page, he didn't go into some hateful rant, so I don't find anything uncivil about it. There is no admin action warranted right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, you didn't notify the user that you brought them here. The notice at the top of this page gives you the template and tells us that it is mandatory. I'm assuming it was a simple oversight, and as such, I've notified them myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This week has seen an increase in Buddhist/Muslim tensions. In sections of Myanmar, for example, there have been riots and deaths. Later in the week, Islamic groups plan a rally in Sri Lanka --the home of the organization in this article. This article has seen a huge amount of vandalism this week from IPs in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Qatar, to mention only a few.

The wikipedia needs to be especially careful of what is says is true. Statements need to have reliable sources. The sources should be checked for neutral point of view, and not merely repeat what someone's enemies are saying about them.115.67.39.165 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC) User talk:115.67.197.210

I need help from more experienced editors and admins, regarding article Legendary creature

Here is the issue to the best of my knowledge:

The article Legendary creature has a sentence that is under dispute and there has been serious edit-warring on this issue. Check out all the random IPs that are doing nothing more than just edit-warring back and forth. I've tried to resolve the dispute by providing references and sources for the sentence, and I've already reverted twice (and been reverted far more times than that) and opened up a talk page discussion to try to resolve the issue. Even so, there is still edit-warring going on at this moment. Can some experienced editors and admins help out? Let me know if I've done anything wrong or what more I need to do at this point to help resolve the dispute. Does this article need semi-protection? Where do I go from here? Also, should I notify all the random IPs of this too, or just the actual users (referring to the "{{subst:ANI-notice}}" thing)? Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and notify the users involved, but if I need to notify the IPs too I can do that.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, you probably *should* notify the IPs.. But to the actioning administrator, please for the love of all that is Jimbo do not put PC on this page :) gwickwire_editing 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, going to go ahead and notify them all. Thanks.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the article itself is linked indirectly from here. That's where a lot of these random IPs seem to be coming from.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a request for semi-protection. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem here is that JM is defending a decidedly tendentious version of the article; it's not surprising that its attracting outside attention. Yes, they shouldn't edit-war, but neither should he. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "defending" anything. I'm trying to contribute to the article by providing sources and references to the article's information. Unfortunately, the article is being repeatedly vandalized by IP users who are ignoring the fact that the text they are removing is indirectly from the sources provided. This has been going on for hours and I've done my best to resolve the conflict via the talk page, bringing up the issue here, trying to get the attention of the mythology wikiproject, request semiprotection, and so on. The objections to the referenced material range from saying that it's offensive to saying that they don't agree with the references provided. Those aren't good enough reasons to remove sourced information from Misplaced Pages.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this belongs here, at least not yet. It's an NPOV issue in that JM and at least one other editor want to include deities (including ones believed in now such as God and Allah as well as older ones such as Zeus), while others don't because they find it offensive. This has led to WP:POINTedits such as removing unicorns from the article. That's not acceptable but I think the issue needs to be resolved at NOVN first. I'll raise it there. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate addition by JM, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is they will be unable to find any citation that passes muster. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Except for the part where I give three references for the sentence, one of which directly mentions gods as being mythological. In any case, I'm not here on WP:ANI to discuss content, but rather to get assistance from more experienced editors and admins in dealing with all these random IP editors that are removing sourced content over and over again.--JasonMacker (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started looking at those references, and so far I find that they do not make the point you are trying to have them make. But that's a content dispute and ought not be discussed here. The only behavioral issues are in the edit war between the IP editors and you, and the protection you've invoked to tilt the playing field in your favor. I'm just as happy to work this out without having to deal with a POINT-y battle between IPs, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a battle that tilts in one side's favor. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. The problem with the IPs is that there are over 20 of them, all reverting sourced information without contributing to the discussion on the talk page. How am I supposed to collaborate with nameless IPs that don't give any justification for what they are doing?--JasonMacker (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I quite agree about locking them out. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

This second discussion started below while the above was ongoing. I've collapsed that one and copied the discussion here so everyone is on the same page. There were also two requests for protection at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a request in at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you would have seen it but there is a thread on the same topic about 8 above this one - here. For the record, agree temp-semi would be a good idea. Stalwart111 08:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And there are actually two requests at WP:RFPP related to Legendary creature. Seems plenty of people have noticed the vandalism. Stalwart111 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. Looks like we have a legitimate content dispute among the IP edit warring. Hmmm. Do we try to sort out the IPs that are disruptive and block just them? Or is it OK to require the good IPs to register? They are coming from Reddit, and Reddit makes you register a username (no email confirmation needed) before you can post, so that would be a familiar concept to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes protected (level 1)-'d. I'm still just an admin hatchling, more that happy if this is challenged and/or changed in any way.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call I reckon. Might want to note it at RFPP. Stalwart111 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think we can start requiring that IPs register an account. Pending changes seems to be the best solution, wish I'd thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good solution.

So, if I look tomorrow and see a bunch of edit warring by IPs, do I report the IPs or do I report the users with reviewer rights who approved the edits? I can well imagine two reviewers who are in a content dispute each approving IP edits that they agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I took it to NPOVN. I guess an RfC is another option. I can't see this being settled on the talk page so full protection just postpones the dispute. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I revised the article lead. "Legends" require stories about a life, and stories about God are not really directed towards a life. Creatures for the most part are nonhuman animals. When "creature" is applied to a human, it often is "used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment," which is somewhat conflicting with the use of "legendary". I explained the new lead sentence on the article talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom also use that red pen to remove excess material from the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Cavann

Cavann (talk · contribs) has been pushing a primordialist POV in Turkey and engaging in incivil behavior and edit-warring. He has told me to learn to read, called me an idiot, called me a POV-pusher. After I warned him to stop making personal attacks , he told me to learn what Neolithic means. He is also edit-warring . Can an admin please warn this individual to to knock it off with the personal attacks and start behaving politely? Any help would be greatly appreciated. It is very difficult to continue discussing faced with such behavior. Athenean (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I have been discouraged and frustrated after the behaviour of Athenean et al. After easily accepting the consensus of Talk:Turkey#RfC which was about mentioning descent of inhabitants of Turkey in the lead, I made another non-descent related change which was quickly reverted, as explained in the 2nd Talk:Turkey#RfC2.

Also note that the other user who reverted me followed me to another article to revert the entire article to another page (I am not sure if this is Wikihounding yet), and that User:Athenean seems to have a nationalistic (Hellenistic) POV that seems to override WP:NPOV in various Turkey related articles. For example, in this recent edit , he lowered the upper boundary to 75% even though the original information was correct, with the 2nd source (p. 264) indicating 90% (and even supplying the page number in ref text!). I know we are supposed to have good faith, but given this minor change was reverted , I am struggling with it. Cavann (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean also seems to be projecting his petty nationalistic POV to me , whereas I try to be more accurate Cavann (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda here is you, with your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time".< That and Your continuing incivility are reasons you should be sanctioned. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have answered that here and here . I am aware you are interested in historical tragic issues , but keep me out of this nationalistic BS you seem to be pursuing. Cavann (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention please: User:Athenean is now deleting reliable sources Cavann (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Cavann. My revert was in accordance with the consensus of the TP of Turkey where Athenean and I have agreed to support CMD's wording. Above all, please don't accuse me of "Wikihounding" when the Ancient Anatolians link was provided by yourself on the TP of Turkey. I merely just viewed the article and discredited its self-sufficiency due to lack of sources since 2010. If you want to go ahead and add sources that's fine with me. After all, the article looks better now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable. It is a bunch of Turkish nationalists claiming that Kurds only make up 6.76% of Turkey's ppoulation, which is clearly ridiculous and clashes with every other known estimate for this population (15-25%, per the sources given in Kurdish people). Who is pushing a petty nationalistic agenda now? Athenean (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that source. I just follow WP:Reliable sources. Jeez. This is getting ridiculous. Cavann (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block both editors for repeated personal attacks here at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing with the edit-warring . Can someone please block this guy, he clearly shows no sign of stopping. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, here or anywhere, unlike Cavann. I have retracted the one statement of mine that could be construed as such. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your open comment in this section accuses him of "pushing a primordialist POV". That phrasing is a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou spam

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) has taken to spamming XFD debates with pointless "thank you" posts when other editors post comments he agrees with. (e.g. , ). These comments consist solely of "Reply. Thank you username".

This sort of fluff adds nothing to a debate, and simply clutter the page, so I deleted them. Jax reverted that deletion, so (probably wrongly), I deleted them again, and they were reverted again.

Is this sort of thankyouspam acceptable per WP:TPG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

At least, they are highly annoying as you think to see a proper reply on one of the - already excessive number of - XFD-discussions. The Banner talk 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is annoying, but I think you need to have a discussion with them on their talk page and try to convince them that this isn't helpful before ANI. Not sure of the exact policy this violates, but common sense says it is at least annoying and potentially disruptive if it were taken to an extreme, thus should be discouraged. Kind of falls under WP:BLUDGEONing, as we don't need to reply to every comment in a delete discussion, good or bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're... holding a "sort of RfC" on the user page of one user, with the intention of overturning an arbcom decision about a different user? Certainly unusual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, an Rfc seems like a waste of time. I'm not sure there's anything the community can do at this point--I really don't think that we can overrule Arbcom by a Rfc vote. I certainly would not want to be the admin to undo the Arbcom block! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to gauge where the community stands. It is something arbcom can take into account, and perhaps influence the internal discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't? What does the WMF say about the scope of Arbcom's authority?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BASC — Ched :  ?  04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the community takes one stance and arbcom takes another yes we will have an interesting situation. Arbcom did overturn User:Jimmy Wales in this case. IMO the community holds the authority. The main thing is that we have a very small group of editors making decisions that affect all of us behind closed doors. For an so called open movement I see this as strange.

The decision they made in this case has had a negative effect on 1) people willingness to be critical of arbcom 2) peoples willingness to speak out about concerns they see regarding COI. It also deals directly with the policy of WP:OUTING. Does sending an email to arbcom and a couple of other admins mentioning concerns of COI count as outing? And who gets to decide if it does or not arbcom or the community? In this case of course that email was counted as outing and an indef ban was handed out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an email to ArbCom can count as outing someone. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, ArbCom rejected the appeal in secret deliberations. We don't know why or what was said, or who thought what. If we find out what the community thinks, maybe ArbCom might just take that on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea of giving the community a way to advise arbcom is a good one, and the RfC format is perfect for that. Having the RfC on some obscure talk page seems like it would result in a biased sample of users, but is some central place better? A practical problem is that those users who get to arbcom tend to be the most tendentious, and I predict that a lot of them would start such RfCs hoping that the community will Rise Up And Smite Those Who Have Been So Very Very Unfair To Them even though they have no case. In the usual case -- a user who is a real problem -- there is a lot to be said for arbcom being the end of the road. On the other hand, in some cases there will be a large number of people who disagree with an arbcom decision, and in those cases there is a lot to be said for arbcom not being the end of the road. It's an interesting and recursive "who watches the watchers" problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should move the page somewhere else? I am happy to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions of this type usually take place at WP:AN. -- Dianna (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands currently, there is no consensus among the community to overturn ArbCom, so this is kind of a moot discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

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

Viriditas made a factually incorrect and uncivil comment about me:

"Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now. Viriditas" diff

I replied:

"Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack. Please retract it immediately. Memills" diff

She did not, so I asked her again: " Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills" diff

Instead of dealing with this issue informally, her response was:

"Please file your formal complaint immediately." diff"

I request that Viriditas be given a warning to engage fellow WP editors to resolve disputes more civilly and to retract patently false statements made about other editors. Memills (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• As much as it might make us cringe at the horrific mangling of the meaning of the word, the use of "literally" when "virtually" (or something similar) is meant isn't a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • OTH, the word "literally" literally means, er... literally. Especially once it is pointed out. It would have been easy for Viriditas to literally back off a bit... even figuratively. The refusal to do so is where the incivility becomes apparent. Memills (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Note: Men's rights movement is on article probation. Memills (talk · contribs) is aware of that, he was warned multiple times and sanctioned twice for violating the terms of the probation, see the log of sanctions. Despite this Memills continues to call other editors "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" and use the article talk page for unhelpful and unspecific commentary, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Ideological meddling as the most recent example. Viriditas may have been wrong to suggest that it has been "literally a hundred times" but it certainly feels like a lot. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" wasn't meant to be taken literally. Nor is the above relevant to the issue here which is about Viriditas' literalness (or lack thereof). Memills (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Griping about the fanciful use of "literally" is silly. Just give him the old adage, "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • A google search of the word shows this; "2.Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling." I think this is a tad bit of an over reaction and does not appear to be an uncivil action or act. I am curious why the OP would not think that editors would now want to look into why the statement was made to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I 200% support what Baseball Bugs and Amadscientist said. Memills, you are literally clutching at straws. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking the behaviour of any editors involved will be scrutinised when a dispute comes up, particularly the behavior of those bringing the complaint. If you don't like this don't bring complaints or better yet, don't show behaviour which you don't want to be scrutinised. Definitely, just saying your behaviour isn't relevant is rarely effective, as the large number of boomerangs attest. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Viriditas requested a formal complaint be filed, diff.  A reasonable response is for an administrator to issue a warning to Viriditas.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I also requested a personal spaceship from Santa Claus. Is it reasonable to expect a response from the North Pole? Sounds like you took this a bit too literally. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• What we know is that you are not worried about being warned, which is why you baited the OP.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone have a trout? Rich Farmbrough, 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

More trouble than worth?

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

Could anyone please explain to me the edits here? At times they seem just fine, but at other times they contain obvious nonsense (). Is this a case of a shared IP? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a shared IP after all. According to this, the IP appears to be from Bratislava, Slovakia. Not to mention he once added this nonsensical edit to the Krzysztof Penderecki article back in February. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this discussion needs to be closed as moot. TBrandley 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

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

There is a request in at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Zhaoweixiong

I have just blocked this user for 24 hours while we try to clean up after him. He is creating dozens of articles on Chinese topics, some of which are promotional, using what appears to be machine-translated text, and has ignored messages on his talk page asking him to take a break. My suspicion is that he is connected in some way with User:Jaguar. I hope no one thinks I've been too precipitate.Deb (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I went and nuked the rest of his contributions as just generally terrible - probably machine translated, barely comprehensible at best, no sources, etc. He has an account and a block log on the Chinese Misplaced Pages, but I can't read it. Perhaps that will be enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And then I went and rescued another that you had saved, Deb - sorry about that. I have asked a Chinese speaker, and apparently Zhao was blocked on the Chinese Misplaced Pages for uploading copyright violations, which makes his contributions here even more suspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a case for a permanent block, do we think? Deb (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Permanent, no. Indefinite, yes. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks by Colleabois on Talk:Germans

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

The first account is a recently registered account of the IP editor. He has linked the IP's user page and user talk page to the registered account. Since registering the account he has started editing Germans by tag bombing it and thratening to remove content unless it was sourced. In tag bombing he left hidden messages in the text which other editors were expected to be able to decipher. He inserted the tags four times and was reverted by three editors. I then reported him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he received a warning for disruptive editing from user:ItsZippy. He has threatened to blank content that he does not agree with. That is an unnuanced and unconstructive way of editing. This is an article that I watch but have not edited. After the WP:EW report, I took one fairly neutral phrase summarising the history of Germany as an example and asked him to explain what his objections were. Instead of using a history book ot books he referred to an atlas, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Eventually I located three sources and produced a short two sentence rewrite, which is now in the article.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

Colleabois has responded that there is "not a grain of truth" in what I wrote and that he will remove it. He has further suggested that I have not looked at the sources. After his warning about edit warring, he is back disputing content that is already in the article in another place in greater detail; it can also be found in numerous other articles on wikipedia. The content is in the sources on the pages mentioned. Even when subsequently pointed to google books to verify the sources, he has said that he cannot and that I must provide the full passages on wikipedia. But obviously I cannot, because it would be a copyvio; and I will not, because his request is time-wasting, disruptive and essentially trolling.

My question is "Why is an editor disputing well-known content and making such absurd suggestions of bad faith?" I have a long record as a content creator in arious subjects and know exactly how to locate and use sources. Why suggest otherwise when the page numbers are given? That is a misuse of wikipedia and a waste of other people's time. His tagging was bad enough (it earned him a warning), but now his discussion of sneutral and well-known facts is being turned into a kind of playground tantrum. I am used to things like that on Europe from editors with a nationalist point of view. I suspect that this editor, with an IP in Nijmegen, might not be approaching this article with a neutral point of view. It is classic tendentious editing.

Even after being given links to the sources, with the actual pages, Coilleabois refuses to look up the sources and is stamping his little foot refusing to accept these commonplace facts about German history available in multiple sources as well as on wikipedia. These facts are uncontroversial and already in the article later on . His performance on the talk page is therefore just childish trolling.

Similarly elsewhere on wikipedia he has claimed that Moules-frites is a national Dutch dish. Like the statements on German history, it is well known (and easily sourced!) that it is a Belgian national dish, originating in Brussels. He has since claimed to be Belgian on Talk:European cuisine and has supported his insertion of "Dutch" before "Belgian" by referring to the Belgian constitution. But his edits are unsourced and unsourceable. Just mindless trolling. He is misleading the reader.

He has also been involved in disputes with other users on Pennsylvania Dutch and elsewhere.

There seems to be far too much tendentious editing, with no attempt to use sources and general trollishness on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never threatened to blank the article. This is the third time that Mathsci claims this in what can be considered as nothing else than an attempt to incite against me. What I've said is the following: "Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided." The issues consist of 10 single phrases.

2. This user stalks my edits (as can be seen here in a clear example of WP:POINT in which he attempts to harass me and has removed sourced statements.

3. This uses repeatedly makes blatant lies about my edits in order to manipulate opinion. For example: in the article on European cuisine I made this edit, in which I state that Moules Frites is ALSO a Dutch dish. After a WP:POINT revert by Mathsci, he then goes on talk to say what he has since repeated here too: It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (...) It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. In other words, he makes it seem as if I claimed it originated in the Netherlands while also attempting to insult me (by assuming I'm Dutch, I'm Belgian) by insulting Dutch cuisine. When I proceeded to add sourced material to back my claim up; he simple attempted to remove it.

4. This user, continually acts hostile and attempts to incite others against me (principally administrators like yourselves) by reporting me for his imagined conspiracy. He claimed I broke the 3RR, which I did not and in this particular case he claims I have made personal attacks. Which he fails to produce evidence for. All this noise he produces makes my talk page look like that of a vandal, which I am not. It is an unhealty situation when other wikipedians advise you to re-register to have a different name so that Mathsci will stop his harassment.

5. Everyone can visit the talk page of Germans and see for themselves that I am only interested in sourced content. I have never been insulting to anyone. Quite the opposite of Mathsci as one can see here.

In short, it is Mathsci himself who is being disruptive and could do very well with a warning. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until now) observer on the sidelines. This is not a simple content dispute and, in my brief encounter with Colleabois, I am inclined to side with Mathsci, as this user displays very tendentious, pointy editing, marching right up to the 3RR line on both of the articles where the deuh-rama is happening, (yes I know, my last revert at European cuisine puts me at 3 changes to the article for the day, collateral damage).

At Germans, three editors had to undo the massive pointy tagging of, apparently, well-established, referenced, stable information. Maybe the editor is well-intentioned but has a very brash, "I'm right so listen to me", martial attitude to their editing and also flings accusations around (per point 4 above), when, in fact, they leave tp messages that say "Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism", which, as I point out further down on the page, is a) incorrect, b) the sources are incorrectly presented, formatted, the author's name is wrong, there is no page number for the first ref etc. and c) wrongly accusing others of vandalism to back up one's own interpretation of correct editing can be considered a personal attack. That's all from me. CaptainScreebo 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you bother to look on the talk page of Germans, you'll find that two editors fully agreed with my content concerns. That the information questioned was not at all referenced (and much of it still isn't - having no references at all) and that only now (and certainly not thanks to Mathsci) progress is being made with the adding of sourced material. Colleabois (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois is now arguing on Talk:European cuisine that Wiener Schnitzel is not a national dish of Austria.Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to administrators: What are generally the consequences if a user repeatedly and willfully misquotes or misstates another users position? My exact words: The problem is, that iconic dishes associated with a certain nation might not be restricted to the nation with which they are most closely associated. Even something like a Wiener Schnitzel, which even has the nations capital in its name (!) will still be identical to a Cotoletta alla milanese and therefore also common throughout northern Italy. I actually stress the fact that it is an iconic Austrian dish. This is not the first time that Mathsci has done this and I suspect it will not be the last time unless something is or can be done. Colleabois (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All this about a picture caption for Wiener Schnitzel, having nothing to do with me? I'm sure dozens of administrators are waiting with baited breath for your informed commentaries on the captions for Kaiserschmarren, Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte, Quetschentaart and Rösti. Why not post them on a blog? Somebody out there might be interested. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A general warning explaining concerning the galleries that though popularly associated with a particular country, some foods are also a tradition of other countries/regions or within the country itself might be considered regional cuisine. You again attempt to distort statements made. Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop shouting on this noticeboard. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The day you stop misquoting me is the day I stop bolding my defence of it. Thanks in advance, Colleabois (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Captain Screebo'sresponse below. Yatter, yatter, yatter ......... Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't get so worked up Mathsci, you might give yourself an heart attack. Colleabois (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord! How about horsemeatballs all round? Surely this is undeniably pan-European cuisine! CaptainScreebo 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your above statement stands proof of your level of commitment to discussion, polite discourse, "un-involvement" and producing sentences like Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? only add to the image of a person who's prejudiced at best. Colleabois (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yatter, yatter, yatter, you are becoming un pot de colle, go pick a fight elsewhere, I am not interested, neither by your pretentious rhetoric nor your singular obsessional nitpicking, it was an attempt at humour, to lighten the mood concerning a subject that has gotten way out of hand due to your insistence that all typical national European dishes should be labelled "WARNING! You may also be served this food in Austria/Germany/Spain/Hungary" etc. You might notice that the admins are just letting this rather belligerent content dispute play out, which I am minded to do also. CaptainScreebo 16:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I suggest you try and make yourself the butt of the joke instead of others. Especially if they're here for serious matters such as accusations of personal attacks. If you want to be a comedian go to open mic night at your local comedy club.Colleabois (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What! Are you telling me that I am a butt, excuse me but this charming expression also means arsehole where I come from, now it is you, dear sir, that are engaging in personal attacks and (sorry just trying out material for the open-mic night at the ANI comedy club, oh it's that-a-way, on my way). CaptainScreebo 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps new additions to your life; such as an interesting hobby, project or friends will help you in spending your free time in France. This clearly isn't working out for you. Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator weigh in on this or close this. This discussion has turned into a good example of WP:SARC --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No thank you. You have made very few edits and they are almost exclusively to Men's rights movement, a problematic article under probation (it has been on my watchlist for a while). You have intervened to encourage Colleabois. Captain Screebo, Illraute, Dusty relic, myself and others have some experience editing, so please let this play out. Colleabois has not proposed any relevant content yet, but has wasted large amounts of other editors' time with frivolous and constantly shifting complaints. Your analysis does not seem accurate. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent contributions; you should not accuse others of WP:SPA as the past few days you've done nothing but to try and insult or harass me; fixating yourself on two articles and this page. Talking about this page, when will you be providing diffs of those personal attacks I've made? Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci please comment on my statements not on who I am. Just because I haven't a large number of edits doesn't mean I can't spot bad behavior. My comment on Colleabois talk page said that he should bring any changes he wants in the article to the talk page first so that he doesn't get accused of being Pointy. And to be honest you could have at least did a diff to Colleabois talk page, and not a mathematical theorem. All in all I would still appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would weigh in on this dispute. The Sarcasm and Snark being displayed is unbecoming of a project that is supposed to be a collaboration. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

EllieBywater and serial copyright problems

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

• EllieBywater (talk · contribs)
• Cambridge University Museum of Zoology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• History Workshop Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Constantine Walter Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William John Swainson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leonard Blomefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , ,
• Alfred Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clive Forster Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert MacAndrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ,

I'd first noticed problem edits here and initiated discussion at the user's talk page , and followed up at Chiswick Chap's talkpage ; he appears to be mentoring Ellie. I subsequently found a history of copyright violations and close paraphrasing at numerous articles. Overall the account appears to have good intentions, and has made substantial contributions, but the history is problematic, weaving scholarship with passages of copy-pasted text, and will entail a lot of mopping up. COI is certainly a motivation, as most of the edits in question derive from Cambridge University's website, where the account works . Rather than list the many diffs, I've provide links to the articles above, accompanied by links to some of the copied text (by no means a complete listing). A Google search of the larger passages added by AllieBywater will reveal the original sources. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to file this at Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations. It meets the criteria (at least five clear examples), and the editors there (read:Moonriddengirl) have the right set of skills to take the next steps. I've only glanced at the details, but it doesn't look malicious, so I am hopeful that a bit of mentoring, and a useful editor can be put back on track. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've copied the report there. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

A Turkish user is currently engaged in extensive edit warring on a number of pages, using several different IPs, to further a Turkish POV. At least 78.160.194.131, 78.160.123.145 78.160.83.240 83.66.212.59 78.160.6.86, 78.160.201.182 are obviously all the same user.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Because they are hopping IPs and that is too large a range to block as a whole, I semi-protected a couple of pages for a month. I suggest WP:RFPP for protection. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is one that is more likely to actually work, since blocking is off the table. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Those IPs are involved on the other articles (same edits, same POV), so please protect them if necessary. List:

• Timurid dynasty, Khilji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi), Kara-Khanid Khanate, Great Seljuq Empire.

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I went and protected most of those. To protect, it needs to show 2 or more times with different IPs making the same edit to war, thus justifying semi-protecting from all IPs for a temporary period. Hopefully, I got that right, Twinkle won't work on protection for some reason, having to do those manually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see their edits, edit summaries, and comments on this template and template talk page: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Template is full protected until 31 March because of same edit wars, POV-pushing, and fringe edits. Read written comments on the talk page, specially the consensus section (and if you write your comment, it will be helpful). Another instance is Great Seljuq Empire. They are same person who uses dynamic/shared IP addresses. So it's better that admins watch the articles which are edited by those IP hoppers (or users with similar activity/edits like those IPs). Zheek (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropics article

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

Subtropics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Each time I try making an improvement to the article, it is being reverted, with the "article's owner" saying to discuss all changes on the talk page. One look at the article will tell you why this article is in need of improvement. So far, we seem to be talking past each other. So far, I haven't delved into an edit war despite all the reverts. But it is tempting. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User Thegreatdr remove pictures and tables from the article without discussion and consensus, overuse of templates and also, his edits have signs of trolling. Edits by user Thegreatdr is very controversial, I asked him several times to discuss first, before changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical-man believes the changes to be controversial...but so far it's only him since only he has seen it. And when I do try to discuss it, I get told the exact same thing, over and over again. No discussion seems possible. Thegreatdr (talk)

I do not know what you're writing? Barely after one-hours-discussion, you write in ANI. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not stating WHY the changes are controversial, in your viewpoint...just that they are. How were the removed tables and images tied in the article? If they are simply examples, you only need one per type. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Subtropical-man does indeed seem to claim to WP:OWN the article. What is more, the above accusation that Thegreatdr is "trolling" is a breach of WP:NPA. Thegreatdr have close to 40.000 edits, so the accusation is outright ridiculous. What is more, the talk page history shows quite clearly that Thegreatdr has discussed quite extensively, so the claim that Thegreatdr isn't discussing is also false.Jeppiz (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I wrote "signs of trolling", numbers of editions? - it does not matter in this case. Returning to the topic, in such a situation, methods are used: Misplaced Pages:CYCLE (edit -> revert = discussion). Also, Thegreatdr, please wait for the opinion of others users in the discussion of article. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • In addition to all of the above, I see that Subtropical-man has also been removing templates, another breach of policy. Quite frankly, the PA above, the repeated edit-warring, the false accusations and the removal of templates all raise concerns over Subtropical-man behavior. Perhaps he should take a break from the article.Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • We can not delete templates, even if they are abused? Ok, tommorow introduce dozen templates to four articles :) False accusations? Where? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard about WP:POINT? And the "abuse"-accusation again vergers on breaking WP:NPA, something the trolling accusation definitely did. And claiming that a user with more than ten talk page comments today is editing "without discussion" is a false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Subtropical-man, looking at the talk page of the article, it appears that Thegreatdr has tried to engage you on the talk page of the article, but you have just said "it is controversial" and have refused to actually engage. While this is primarily a content dispute, refusing to discuss after you have reverted is considered disruptive and is not a sign of good faith. Throwing around the "troll" label is also incivil. You need to go a bit more out of your way to explain why you reverted (politely), not just stand your ground and make a broad claim of it being controversial. If you can't work it out, then WP:DRN is the place to go, but you need to either engage in genuine discussion, or disengage from reverting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is much too ripe for ANI. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well played. Took me a moment to get it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain what is wrong in edits by Thegreatdr. After analysis, I regret to say: each edition by Thegreatdr in this article is controversial or/and wrong, also his latest edition, Taipei has a subtropical climate according to the most sources and whole Taiwan is only partly as tropical. So, I have a question: how long the article will be changed in this way (controversial or/and wrong)? In this situation, first should be a discussion, later: edits. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then by all means, continue this content discussion on the actual article talk page so we can close this. We don't want to decide content at ANI, just behavior and methods, keeping in mind that in accordance with WP:BRD, if you have reverted AND someone is asking why, you are obligated to make a good faith attempt to discuss the matter with them on that talk page if you are going to insist on excluding the material. It is a two way street. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

31.87.25.120

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

The IP in the heading has been repeatedly following User:Dougweller around and reverting him with insulting edit summaries. See the contributions (linked in the heading for what I mean). Jakob _C2 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've temporarily blocked the IP as a sock. If reports need to be logged for archival reasons or the block needs to be altered, let me know. Tiderolls 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a Paul Bedson sock - not the only one

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive and . Also 213.205.233.213 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 72h, same as the above (note, not indef unlike the closing statement, as these appear to be dynamic IPs) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have revert 2 many times

YahwehSaves

Please see a long, long list of complaints spanning years at WT:MIL#Guidance question from Admin or Sysop, please, including article talk page vandalism from today. The reasons the other editors were hesitant to report this at ANI might also be of interest. This came up recently three months ago at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:YahwehSaves_refusing_to_leave_signature. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently? That link is from 3 months ago.

What is the current problem which requires admins? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you used to be the banned user "Light current"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how did you know who I was talking about? And you ARE close geographically. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's still not signing. Supposedly, refusal to sign is a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Was already blocked 24hrs before regarding this issue. Another follow up seems appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, disruptive editing at the Audie Murphy page. Talk:Audie_Murphy#Closely_checking_for_copyvio_and_sourcing details what we are trying to correct just from the most recent spate of his edits. There's more, but not everything has been checked from his March edits. Copyvio, no sourcing, and (in an earlier thread on that page), "don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know" in response to editors asking him to properly source his edits. Audie Murphy is a GA, that we are trying to bring up to FA. Now we spend all our time checking and correcting the edits of YahwehSaves who lifts entire phrases from other sites and/or doesn't bother to source, refuses to learn the basics of editing in WP Manual of Style. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Baseball, your diff above actually shows YS attempting to sign, they just got the format wrong. Four tildes present, so that is promising. I also cannot see any recent attempt to discuss the matter with YS before bringing to ANI. No admin action required at this point, I would say. GiantSnowman 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. So why didn't the signature show up?←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the disruptive editing? — Maile (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint - now found to be premature - was about YS not signing posts. if YS is engaged in disruptive behaviour then please provide some diffs to evidence that. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several MILHIST editors that have been monitoring this article and the complete debacle it has become due directly to the involvement of YS. He refuses to follow the MOS, has committed numerous copyvios and when reverted he just reverts and carries on as normal. The level of disruption is significant and sustained. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves was invited to join the discussion at MILHIST, and has ignored the invitation. There have been around 50 disruptive edits in March, plus long non-productive ramblings from YahwehSaves on the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a few recent diffs I will be happy to take a further look. GiantSnowman 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't dug out all the diffs, so take this with whatever grain of salt you choose, but I agree that YS has become an unnecessarily time-consuming, disruptive presence there. Attempts to discuss sourcing and copyright violation on that talk page don't seem to have made progress, as YS has stated that he/she doesn't have time to learn Misplaced Pages "technicalities". Maile posted a quick summary of what's happening to the Audie Murphy talk page at Talk:Audie_Murphy#Dates_below_reflect_YahwehSaves_edits.2C_my_signature_date_is_when_I_made_changes that may give a start to whoever wants to catalogue this properly.

And, FWIW, a glance at the talk page does show various unsigned comments besides the one cited above: , , . -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Give me some time. I'll give you the initial copyvio rv that happened and their reversal back and forth. Hope I'm doing this correctly: , , , , These all concern one copyvio that YahwehSaves kept reverting. There's so much more disruptive editing that just this. That whole article is now embedded with recent bad edits by YahwehSaves that we are having to go through. But you also need to look at the talk pages on Audie Murphy and Military History to get the full picture of what has been going on. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another copyvio revert by me (different than the one above), of a YahwehSaves March 9 edit, , YahwehSaves has not been editing the article over the weekend, so we don't know if he'll revert this or not. A lot of the YahwehSaves edits being reverted are for no sourcing. In some cases, YahwehSaves edits contradicts known sources, but he won't cite his own source. In one case, he insisted the existing source was invalid and that his source was valid, but he refused to give his source. And in a great deal of what YahwehSaves has done to the article in March, we simply do not know where he got the information. Given his history of copyvio, we can't risk unsourced prose from him on an article that is aiming for FA WP Main Page attention.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This March 19 diff is where YahwehSaves has replied to a source challenge with, " I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know." — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 17 and 18 diff , in which YahwehSaves removed text and existing sourcing from both an online site named GlobalSecurity (which he claims is not good) and also sourcing from the United States Army War Department official records. He replaced the removed sourcing with unsourced scans. In spite of his being told on the talk page that scans are not sources and that the article text required sourcing, YahwehSaves did not remove the scans and source his editing. I reverted these unsourced edits of YahwehSaves on March 22. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This same editor showed similar tendencies with the Medal of Honor article around the same time as the first complaint linked by Dank above. A quick glance at his/her talk page seems to show a history of issues with this kind of behavior. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Caste sanctions enforcement request

Pnranjith (talk · contribs) has been arguing rather strongly and without a lot of regard for Misplaced Pages policies on Talk:Ezhava, an article which falls under the general sanctions placed by the community on all caste-related articles. That's irritating, but since s/he's not edit warring on the article, can be managed to some degree. However, the editor has also repeatedly been aggressive and abusive. Previous attacks for which the editor has been warned (see the user's talk page) include and . The user was also warned of the caste-article sanctions in User Talk:Pnranjith#Sanctions.

Today, Pnranjith made, among others, this edit, directly insulting Sitush. It's time for this to stop. I think that the user's personal involvement in the underlying dispute (having to do with whether or not two groups of people are actually two different groups or one group with two different names) is making it impossible for the editor to follow Misplaced Pages policies, since his/her need to get the Truth into Misplaced Pages is making her/him unable to follow rules like WP:RS and WP:V. As such, I think it's likely that the encyclopedia would benefit from the user being topic banned. But I understand that such a move requires quite a bit more analysis on the part of the ANI community, and so I would be satisfied that the user is at least blocked for ongoing personal attacks, and made to understand that any more poor behavior will result in further/longer sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the acronym soup but it is the WP:TE and WP:IDHT of this returning WP:SPA that concerns me more than calling me an idiot - plenty of people do that and sometimes they are right. In this case, I think it is caused by frustration: they think that I (and others) are using our policies as a means intentionally to deny what they consider to be true. Around April 2012, they got involved in an earlier version of this dispute when they hung on the coat-tails of Thiyyan (talk · contribs), now they're hanging on to Irajeevwiki (talk · contribs).

NB: there are admins all over Talk:Ezhava but they can do nothing (assuming they want to) because of WP:INVOLVED (Qwryxian, Martijn Hoekstra, RegentsPark, Drmies and also the ex-admin Boing! said Zebedee). - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ANI, my favourite noticeboard. There is indeed a mess over at that page, focussing around the mess SPA's, if not tigers are causing there. There is a constant influx of IP editors and new SPA's who consistently hold the same viewpoint, which suggest meatpuppeting. The personal attacks made by these SPA's should stop, because firstly, it can be immensely draining to deal with it for those facing it, and secondly, because it impedes reasonable discussion. (I'd like to quickly compliment Sitush on the patience he is showing, and the way he lets these things slide off him). The thing that is probably even more draining is the unwillingness to get the point. The personal attacks are fairly easily actionable: a clear warning that any future personal attacks may result in a block, followed by a possible escalating series of blocks is certainly possible. The question is what that would achieve. Blocks for these kinds of things may help the NPA thing (which is in itself a pretty big win), but will not fix the underlying issues, and will likely further entrench the unwillingness to get the point, which is in my opinion a far greater problem. ANI has already authorised discretionary sanctions. I would support that any editor or IP starting to make the same point that has already been made over and over be advised to edit further on wikipedia on different issues, warned that perceived problematic behaviour may be met with a topic ban, topic-banned for a month (but not immediately blocked! turning an SPA POV pusher with a dissenting voice into a Wikipedian who has a better grasp of how we deal with reliable sources, and how that relates to OR would be a huge win) if there is a clear indication of refusal to get the point, even if there no evidence, and that that topic ban should be enforceable by block. As I am somewhat involved, I would currently (just) like to advice both Irajeevwiki and Pnranjith to expand their editing scope, and spend at least as much time on non-caste related subjects broadly construed as on this issue. If others agree with my suggestion, and believe anyone should be warned I would strongly agree with some warnings here and there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting block of User talk:82.227.98.3

I am requesting a block of User talk:82.227.98.3. They have repeated the exact same disproven, unreferenced edits time and again for the Sonny Bill Williams article as shown in their contributions. I have repeatedly warned them and provided evidence against their edits, in a calm manner, yet they seem intent on not discussing and continuing upon their path.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you didn't notify the user of this discussion, I'll do so for you.

Also, the user does reply here; granted, that was a week ago. I'll issue a final warning. m.o.p 05:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello m.o.p. Actually i did notify the user with the relevant ANI-notice. So i am not sure why you say i didn't. Also, the user gave only 1 reply in the numerous times i contacted them. Even then their reply made no use of references and was full of opinionated ramblings.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

hoax, slander or what?

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

The current content of userpage User:VictoriaSecretJ of this 1-edit-user seems to be inappropriate and surely out of scope. Over at Commons the (likely) same user uploaded image File:Victorian Model Michelle"Carrolline" Hernandez.jpg, which also contains in its description a lot of questionable legal information about an real (or fictious) identified person. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Someguy1221 deleted the userpage and the file. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with User:Masterzora

After repeatedly imploring that a user please stop accusing me of having an "agenda" and instead help to contribute to the article, I'm still met with accusations of bad faith.

Please see Talk:Legendary creature where I have told User:Masterzora that I'm only interested in discussing the article, multiple times, yet this user refuses to "drop it" so to speak and continues to accuse me of acting in bad faith, of trying to "game" Misplaced Pages, and so on. I've said numerous times that Talk:Legendary Creature is not the appropriate place to discuss my perceived misconduct, but it keeps being brought up over and over again. In fact, if you look at User:Masterzora's contributions you'll see that the ONLY contributions to that article and its talk page are personal attacks on me, rather than aiming to help improve the article. After about two years of being inactive, suddenly this user pops up out of nowhere and begins nothing but personally attacking me and accusing me of having an "agenda".

I would like some help with how to move forward on this issue, because I'm not interested in discussing these bizarre accusations of me pushing an agenda, along with insinuating that because I am "an active user of multiple atheist subreddits" (in reference to reddit's subforums which are called subreddits) that this somehow makes me it okay to assume that I'm here to push some sort of "agenda".

If I have done anything wrong thus far I would like help from more experienced editors and admins in letting me know what I've done wrong and how I can fix it. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Masterzora is a pretty old account that suddenly reawakened specifically to make these accusations. I'm not sure whether it's compromised or what. That said, once again this comes across as not entirely innocent. JasonMacker's participation in the Reddit thread evinces a certain position/bias which is reflected in the direction he is trying to take the article, and which has been manifested most recently in an attempt to move the article to a different title where he thinks his position may be more readily defended. This also is meeting with a great deal of resistance. Masterzora needs to be reined in if he continues, as his battle with JasonMacker is proving to be nuisance and distraction; but the latter needs to consider how consensus is running pretty strongly against him in the article and perhaps back off from what is coming across as something of a POV crusade. Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is a bit inaccurate to say I reawakened specifically to make these accusations. My first two comments (and the only two before the move proposal) were both directed at content, with only a sentence each directed at the Reddit invasion itself. It was only when the tactic was changed to the move that the content of my comments became one of accusations. And this does pertain to the fact that I am an old account being reawakened: despite once being a fairly frequent contributor I let the account wither because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with editors who seemed more concerned with maintaining a position than with increasing the quality of the wiki. I revived the account because I was specifically seeking to stop an external invasion of people who fit that very description from succeeding at making their vandalism stick. And once I'm sure they won't succeed, this account will wither away once again, probably until I am linked to another invasion.

And so this brings us to the proposal to move. I, and other editors, have pointed out content-based reasons to oppose the move. In a perfect world, that should be it. However, I also believe it foolish to believe that the move is strictly about improving content and future commentors and any potential closing admin need to be aware of the other factors involved before weighing in or moving the article. Perhaps I am unsupported by policy, but I firmly believe that any change put forth by a POV invasion that helps further the cause of said invasion requires greater scrutiny and a higher standard to actually put in effect. In order to actually make people aware, the comments have to be somewhere they'll see them, hence putting them in the proposal to move. Further, poking through his history, JasonMacker seems to have been a useful contributor before this incident so I did not want to seek any action against him and hence me not opening an ANI as he has done.

I will admit that, especially with Misplaced Pages's rudimentary "threading", my comments seem to be rather distracting in their current location. As such, while I will firmly stand by their content and current inclusion, I will refrain from adding onto them. However, if he continues the crusade of his invasion, and especially if he continues trying to hide behind policies that don't even support him, I will look to reverse my current position and actually take action against him. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

There is currently a two day backlog, any administrators willing to help would be appreciated. Crazynas 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bedson again - this time randomly reverting me

213.205.235.142 (talk · contribs) - blocked IP for 24 hours and reverted. This time he's just reverting me at various articles he's never edited. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned user - simply revert, block & tag. Then wait for the next sock... GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2's removal of photograph at Albert II, Prince of Monaco

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

as far as stalking, the complainer, William, never edited the Albert article until he started.to hate me then followed me there. Stalking is a blockage offence. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and continue putting great facts into WP if we drop this matter and block william — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

using William's logic, if you edit and do not put a citation, you should be blocked. I knew for a fact that Prince Albert went tI the south pole. However, I later thought that great editors put a citation to all work so I put a citation needed tag so I or someone else could fix it tomorrow. William, the complainer, rejects AGF, thinks the worse, removed the fact, and falsely accused me.

as for his complaint about signing, he advocates you break the law. The ADA law is for handicapped people, such as me. wikipedia is great in that it Autosigns. .

This editor keeps removing a photograph of the Prince with President Obama. Here, here, here, here, here, and here. Three editors have disagreed with these removals and reverted. It was talked about here on Prince Albert talk page, nobody supports his removal of the photographs.

Bamler2 also made this deliberately wrong edit to the article here. Note he puts a CN tag on an edit he created.

He's accused one of the reverting editors(me) of stalking him in this Prince Albert edit summary. Bamler2 also made the same accusation at my talk page.

As for the rest of his behavior, he's accused another editor of sockpuppetry without proof. Sorry but that ANI thread wasn't archived. li Note- The ANI thread hasn't been properly archived, so I linked to its last version on the home page. All but one of the Prince Albert edits took place before the ANI thread started.

He's accused an editor of racism. There are these posts, here and here. In the latter he wrote in the summary- 'removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry'

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, refuses to abide with consensus, and makes untrue accusations. Some type of block is needed, if not a total site ban....William 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the complainer, William, just vandalized WP. See this http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sour grapes, lies, and personal attacks. I improve wikipedia. Prince Albert's article has been improved by me adding a more relevant photo of his reign,not an undue weight of Mr. Obama, where the pic is merely a museum reception, nothing major about his reign or Obama's policies. I correctly add that Albert has walked to the south pole...look it up. William should be blocked for falsely claiming this is wrong info that I put in.....as far as accusing editor William of stalking, look he stalks me again..

WP:BURDEN clearly states 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material'. Which you didn't do till now. Where was the source when you made the edit?

Furthering my case for some sort of action against this editor is his 1- Repeated failure to sign his posts. 2- His c unwarranted accusation of me being a stalker and 3- His attempts to disrupt this thread by improperly place his responses.(I've taken the liberty of moving them to beneath my complaint since they are a response to it. Bamler2 knows how to respond on a talk page or ANI thread. He just constantly refuses to do so....William 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Subthread since this has become such a mess to follow

First, the edit warring by Bamler2 has to stop. S/he has now been warned about that. Continued efforts in that direction will result in Bamler2 being blocked. Second, talk page discussion formatting is here for a reason. Continued unconventional threading discussions like this is evidence of tendentious editing. The editor needs to follow the convention set forth by consensus. Information to that effect has been left on that user's talk page. Third, yes, the user needs to sign their posts. Fourth, I see no evidence that WilliamJE has vandalized. I suspect Balmer2 has good intent but has a lot of learning to do about how to communicate and edit effectively here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. He removed a good fact and falsely accused me of vandalism. Of the billions of people in the world, I am the only to add that Albert went to the south pole to someone doesn't edit that he went to the north. William then falsely accused me of vandalism even though my edit is true, unless you call the Monaco government press office a liar Bamler2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

123.224.94.138

123.224.94.138 (talk · contribs)

Well, I was fine when an IP editor started an edit war in the article, and I tried to mediate something. They even complained at my talk page that I warned them for edit warring. They still disagreed with everybody, reverting the edits on Joseph van Wissem every time they showed up in Misplaced Pages. That was still fine with me, and I filed a DRN request which is still pending. But today they reverted my edits calling it vandalism, which I am afraid goes over the top. Could somebody please have a look (the page history and tha talk page should be sufficient) and see whether a block would be in order here, or may be I misunderstand something.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it is a WP:COI issue concerning 24.42.67.83 (talk · contribs) aka Jozefboys (talk · contribs) aka Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs) who edits the Jozef van Wissem page claiming to be the subject of the article. See also WP:COIN#Jozef van Wissem. I think the editor's narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing clearly indicates that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Ymblanter has repeatedly reverted only my edits without explaining why at the talk page. I just called his revert "vandalism" because I feel like being hounded by him/her. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consensus was reached at the talk page concerning one of the versions. You were repeatedly told by at least three users to stop reverting but you did not.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consesnsus was not reached yet. Additionally, the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some help here. The unregistered editor from Tokyo changes IPs frequently, so we probably need WP:SEMI on the BLP to stop his edit warring rather than blocks.

This trumped-up "COI" was the subject trying to get errors out of his article. The IP spent the first half this dispute insisting that the article say that the subject is still collaborating with people he hasn't worked with for several years (including, by the way, two musicians from Tokyo ...just sayin').

Now he's insisting that since the subject made slightly more non-solo albums than solo albums means that the exact name of one of the defunct collaborations must be mentioned in the lead, plus that his most widespread work (the musical score for a popular video game) much be removed, and again that all of his (many) past collaborators should be mentioned in the same list as his (two) current ones. Furthermore, he expects detailed refutations to an endless series of similarly trivial "reasons" why he's right and all six of the registered editors on that talk page are wrong.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the IP. We've either got someone trying to boost his own career in this article, or we've got someone who is obsessed with one of those past collaborators. We need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One or more users in this case have fit behavioral patterns in a potential SPI case - I would recommend opening an SPI of the individuals identified in this Editor Interaction Analyzer to clear things up :EIC SPI Candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would interest SPI. It's hardly surprising that three editors, each of whom have tens of thousands of edits, and who were brought into this dispute on the basis of noticeboard requests for help, have previously interacted with each other on various pages. The other items amount to saying the current disputants are in a dispute that has spread across multiple pages in an effort to attract help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism of my talk page by Deven94 whilst logged out

Hi,

Further to my recent report, User:Deven94 has attacked my talk page directly by page blanking it using User talk:149.254.182.207.

It's a bit difficult for me to link each instance individually, but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Usual_people_in_life&action=history

Provides a summary of the edits (which I have now reverted).

Please could someone now consider a block on his account and access because this in my opinion is a direct attack against me, and I am tired of having to revert his edits.

He has also blanked his own talk page on his account, possibly to cover his tracks.

Dev has also been given a personalised warning by WP admin.

Is it time for a block on his access?

If you do block him, could you IPBE (IP Block Exempt) me please, so that I don't get affected.

Thanks, Usual people in life (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You likely need to talk to a Checkuser. Look at the bottom of the page WP:SPI or find one active on the WP:Functionaries page. This is the kind of IPBE that admin aren't going to even consider without a CU being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you and Deven94 are on the same IP network ? —Soap— 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response.

Soap: The answer to your question is yes and no (it depends on where I am). As can be seen from my account data, I created my account around 2 or 3 years ago at home to edit more effectively. Deven94 only created his at his home around January this year (to my knowledge) simply to vandalize the site as account creation is blocked at college. Most of my edits at college are attempts to revert his vandalism whilst trying to avoid 3RR, (I reverted a batch of them against my user page around 2PM GMT). Unfortunately, me reverting his damage appears to have led to him starting to vandalize my user space and seeming to try to attack my on-line accounts. I don't think college is prepared to contribute to the WP X-Forwarded For (XFF) project that is hosted to identify who is doing what. I can assure you though that the activity that deven94 is generating IS being logged by college servers against his college account - I've reported directly to IT support that he is abusing his WP access.

It appears the same, which may be because I often use a college VPN to access my college files, the result of which is that as a side effect I 'appear' to be on the same network as Deven94 but I'm actually elsewhere (see the logs for this edit to determine my true IP location as I'm currently disconnected from the VPN and I don't use proxies - I suspect Deven94 does use them) I logged in at college a few times to feedback to WP admins that I had notified college admin of the IP edit abuse occurring at college and also to (try to) revert his vandalism.

It's an unfortunate side effect of having such a large college network - everything appears to be from one person when it is actually from over 1000 people at the college.

Is there anything that can be done to prevent deven from blanking my talk page again? I say this because he also blanked his talk page which wiped out the warning Dennis Brown left there. (I feel that if I revert the blanking I will be subjected to more vandalism from him so I'm not prepared to even attempt it, I'd rather leave that to WP admin)

Feel free to contact me at my e-mail address if you need to - I have a feeling that deven will be watching this page waiting to blank it.

In the meantime, would it be best for me to avoid logging in at college or when using the college VPN?

Thanks Usual people in life (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Purplebackpack89 is checking my contributions and following me to places he wouldn't find otherwise, just to delete anything I try to save it seems.

I previously complained about his actions, explaining WP:HOUNDING to him, he just erasing my message without responding there.

He then later makes a comment about it on talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FDreamship where he says "Let that be a lesson to you: if you weren't so busy trying to start shit with me, that article might still be around". He has previously complained about me and the Misplaced Pages I'm an active part of, the Article Rescue Squadron, dragging those debates all over the place.

After commenting in an AFD I was in, he then goes to deletion review I started where he says nothing other than say "endorse", to endorse the deletion. I ask him about that on his talk page, he claiming he has the right to follow my contributions. He then deletes that discussion instead of responding again. Can someone explain to him that he is not allowed to follow someone's contributions around just to argue with them like he keeps doing? Dream Focus 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close with a TROUT-slap and a boomerang: First off, DreamFocus has yet to produce diffs that show me directly responding to something he said on Dreamship or any other page. So we both commented on the same page? Not seeing the problem; DreamFocus and I are both active participants in AfDs and DRVs. If you looked at the last 100 pages DreamFocus has edited; you'd see that I haven't edited 80-90 of them, so I think the HOUNDing accusation is totally baseless. And, yes, DreamFocus should be admonished for his actions regarding Dreamship; when I tagged it, the first thing he did was accuse me of HOUNDing. Meanwhile, he didn't even bother to improve the article or even participate in the AfD discussion. You're darn right that I have deleted messages DreamFocus has posted on my talk page in the past. I consider them to be disruptive; after all, this is an editor who's been in and out of ANI dozens of times and been blocked thrice. Not sure what DreamFocus' comment about the ARS has to do with Wikihounding, either. Also, DreamFocus is being horrendously hypocritical; just the other day, he followed me to a discussion I was having with User:Colonel Warden here pbp 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have Warden's talk page on my watchlist. I have posted there before, and we are both active members of the same Wikiproject. I did not follow you. Dream Focus 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so lemme get this straight...it's OK for you to follow Warden (and me when I post to his talkpage)? Why isn't that HOUNDing? pbp 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Noticing a talk page on your watchlist and responding is fine. Going to someone's contributions just to follow them around however is not. I did NOT follow you at anytime. Dream Focus 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone please read the links I provided. Don't let him distort things. Don't his comments look like he was mad at me and that's why he went to someplace I had worked on something? No other way he could've found that. Dream Focus 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression it took a lot more instances of interaction before its really considered hounding. It's hard to see much of a trend with so few difs. Certainly doesn't seem like anything actionable beyond a "Hey guys, calm down before this escalates into something more-actionable" type advice. Just my two cents. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • He's done it more, just now and again. Here is one . I thought those two recent ones though proved it was happening. Can someone just confirm he is not allowed to follow my contributions like he has clearly done? Dream Focus 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not clear that I do that from the information given. Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it. Finally, "now and again" doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does. As I said above, I have never edited most of the last 100 pages you've edited. Also, what I'm seeing from your last diff is more a disruptive editor making an unfounded accusation of HOUDing, not actual HOUNDing pbp 20:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of the pages both of you have edited. Clicking on the "timeline" link gives you details about the interactions on each page. It would be interesting if one of you did a count of how many times something from Dream Focus was followed by a reply by Purplebackpack89 vs. how many times something from Purplebackpack89 was followed by a reply by Dream Focus. If the posing is random, the two numbers should be somewhat close. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors. Wikihounding only occurs if the purpose of following the editor is to harass them. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of that. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Having an argument with someone, then checking their edits to find something you can go to which they are trying to safe and state you believe it should be deleted, is hounding. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Guy Macon, That list is mostly just AFDs which were tagged on the Rescue Wikiproject, so it doesn't really tell anything. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Dream Focus, and I highly doubt that pbp's intentions for edit stalking them are valid. Pbp has a history of first declaring someone disruptive, then using that defamation as an excuse to hound them. I've asked him 9 times to stay off my talk, and still he refuses to respect that request. GabeMc 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• For a brief history of pbp's propensity for hounding, look here, here, and here. GabeMc 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To Dream Focus; You can tell the tool to only look at articles, only look at article talk pages, only look at user talk pages, etc. As for the claim "it doesn't really tell anything" I contend that it is two or three cherry-picked examples that do not really tell us anything. You need to establish that it is not just random chance that two editors with lots of edits and similar interest keep hitting the same pages. I have not done a count myself, so I have no idea whether your claim is accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• He did admit it already didn't he? He is following my contributions in violation in the hounding rule. Every time someone gets mad at you for daring to disagree with them on something, they shouldn't be able to check your contributions, and follow you somewhere they wouldn't have ever found otherwise, just to irritate you. Dream Focus 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:HOUND: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." That last part sure sounds like pbp to me. GabeMc 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc: personal attacks, deadhorse

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GabeMc seems to have found this discussion, most likely via the same edit-searching method DreamFocus is critical of above. He brings up Danjel drama that is old news and ended with Danjel retiring in disgrace, in part for (surprise, surprise!) HOUNDing Epeefleche and me. But, in response to why did I post to GabeMc's talkpage? Personal attacks GabeMc levied against me like this might have something to do with it. Bringing up Harry Potter over and over again in WP:VA/E-relating discussion after three different threads resulted in keeping him on the list might have something to do with it. Could I get a "stop the personal attacks, and stop bringing up Harry Potter over and over again", please? pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have ANI watchlisted, so no, I didn't find this thread via searching your contribs pbp, always remember to assume good-faith. GabeMc 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kinda hard to AGF to somebody who called me a "Type-A control freak" pbp 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, yes, I regrettably made that snarky comment once, but I struck-out the comment within minutes of making it. You on the other hand, have repeated the phrase at least 10–15 times since. So, if you need an apology to drop this, then fine, I'm really sorry. I should not have made that comment nor will I again. Can we please move on now? GabeMc 23:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Shameless VA/E plug

While we're here, everybody should participate in the numerous discussions going on at WP:VA/E and WP:VA pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock created with my name

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Please delete account admonish user. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is a wp:doppelganger, not a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is not a registered account. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And why are you my doppelganger? Did I ask you to do that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked with extreme prejudice. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I reduced the prejudice. But yes, Emmette, that's pretty inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, so now someone else has a password to an account that could be me who is blocked? I want that password. The only reason I even found out was that I happened to see Emmette's contribs; didn't even bother to tell me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a tiny difference in the apostrophes, it seems; Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) was the "real" impostor, and Im not sure how Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) figures into it but it is not an actual user, impostor or otherwise. It seems that Emmette Hernandez Coleman created the account, thinking he was doing you a favor, and there was a misunderstanding because he didn't tell you. So I hope we can all understand and forgive and forget now. —Soap— 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I want the password. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you and Emmette to discuss, but I warn you both now that posting passwords on-wiki is grounds for immediate account blocking as a security risk (and to answer a variation, it's not possible for anyone *else* to look up that password if Emmette declines to give it to you him/herself). The account is indef'ed with talkpage access disabled, so there's no use for it. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What kinda bullshit is that? Someone holds the password to my name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this: anyone who tries that not-actually-your-account right now is not actually you, so the person doing them is liable to be blocked. And whoever has that password is powerless to use it anyway (even if you had it yourself). Your best bet is to leave it alone, and avoid taking on the risk of using a tainted account. Alternately, you can discuss off wiki whatever you two want regarding trying to use a blocked account. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The account's blocked, and nobody's going to unblock it; Emmette couldn't do anything with the account even if he wanted to. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename resquested. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the account to keep Seb from being impersonated, that's why I used the {{doppelganger-other}} tag. I don't see how that is inappropriate, if it is why do we have the {{doppelganger-other}} tag? Seb, I don't hold password to your name, I used a radioum password that I never bothered to record. Even if I did it would be a major improvement over the previous sutetion where everyone with an Internet connection held your name, no password necessary. had I routinely create these doppelganger accounts, and nothing ever came of it before. I used to inform people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, but then I realized that someone might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate; you might come from a culture where names do not matter; handling someone else's name or names without their permission is the highest possible offense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of us come from such a culture, and many or most people reading this thread (me, for example) had no clue that Navajo culture was different; it would be unreasonable to expect EHC to act differently in your case from other people's cases. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to create doppelganger accounts for other users. I've nominated that template for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be reasonable to expect that no-one does this kinda shit for whatever reason. Who the fuck is this user to usurp some sorta managing position like that??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some reason for the foul language? We get it that you are pissed off. Swearing doesn't help your cause it seems.--Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If there was ever a good reason for using the word fuck...this would be it. This is an odd sort of thread. What is going on exactly that a user's name is being used in this manner. I think Seb should be allowed to usurp that name in some manner so that it may never be used again.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, there is NO good reason for foul language here. All it shows is ignorance and immaturity. --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other account creations

Emmette Hernandez Coleman has apparently created a number of alternate accounts for other users. The account above was clearly not created at the user's request, so I question whether any of the others were requested. At least a few of these are rather inappropriate, and while probably well-intentioned, these account creations should stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They weren't requested. I understand Seb, as that seems to be a cross-cultural issue, but otherwise I don't see how it's inappropriate. Before I registered then any potential impostor could have registered and used them. Now that I have, no one, not even I, can use them (they all have scrambled passwords). If this is inappropriate, why do we even have the {{Doppelganger-other}} tag? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated that for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me exotic or whatever. There are numerous people who wouldn't want you or anyone else to do this, just like they wouldn't want you to cover their house with mirror-sheets so it saves energy and lowers their electricity bill. You just don't do that kinda stuff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. Don't we have the account creator right for users who are trusted to do this? If Coleman isn't an account creator, he needs to agree to stop immediately. Since he doesn't understand why people have a problem with this, he should be given a restriction. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by MathSci

Can someone please instruct MathSci to refrain from personal attacks at User:Jmh649/Will Beback? I don't know what MathSci's beef is, but they should address the comments, not the contributor. I attempted in good faith to work this out with MathSci on their talkpage but MathSci apparently refused to respond in good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Mathsci (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP should be warned or blocked for removing other people's comments. I will not revert again, but the OP keeps calling this a personal attack which is in its self a personal attack. --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MathSci: This has already been explained to you. Please, address the contribution, not the contributor. I hoped to avoid ANI, but when I tried talking to you on your talkpage, you responded by deleting my kind request. Please, if you want to disagree with what I said, go ahead and do so. But there's no need to make personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Ford, Robert; Goodwin, Matthew J.; Cutts, David (2011), "Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes: Support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections", European Journal of Political Research, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01994.x, retrieved 18 November 2011 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards