Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 22 April 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 25 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 23 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 92 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Please remove my ban.

I would like to protest a ban on Armenian and BLP articles I have been given.

The ban was given for using Twitter as a source for the nationality of UFC fighter Gegard Mousasi.

This is the ANI discussion. As I pointed out, Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources says of Twitter, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." This tweet comes from Gegard Mousasi himself.

However, Admin Gwickwire (he deleted his user page) said "twitter is never a reliable source" which directly contridicts what Misplaced Pages has established as reliable sources. I would like to point out Twitter is also used as a source for the ethnic backgrounds of other UFC fighters Scott Jorgensen and Chad Mendes.

Then User:Little green rosetta said that if the Twitter account is verified or acknowledged by reliable sources as the person's Twitter account, it is an acceptable source.

Here is where things got messy. At the time, I only knew one, apparently unreliable, source that acknowledged this as the account of Gegard Mousasi. However, I later found good sources, such as Yahoo! Sports and Bleacher Report, that confirm it is in fact the real Gegard Mousasi. And UFC President Dana White has talked to Mousasi on that account. He also puts unprofessional pictures of himself up that no website had first. However, at this time I no longer cared about my original edit and Glickwire said, "User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block." I assumed I wouldn't be getting in trouble and left the thread without showing my sources.

But I didn't realize a punishment was being decided behind my back and didn't get to appeal it. Had I known, I would have shown my sources.

As has already been established here, that while I haven't made personal attacks and have not used the undo button more than three times, User:BearMan998, who made this ANI, has said things like "Clearly you should know by now", "I believe this is what got you banned previously", "This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past" and "Based on your past behavior". These show he has very foul faith. Also, take a look at his contributions. He has spent most of his time on Misplaced Pages for the past month undoing my edits on the Gegard Mousasi and Karo Parisyan pages and trying to get me banned.

And as I told User:King of Hearts, this did not take place on an Armenian page because Mousasi is not a technical Armenian. Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian. So, if I should be blocked from anything, it should be Iranian and/or MMA articles. But I do not think I should be blocked at all and that is why I'm here. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're going to notify all involved, as didn't happen with me. My comments still stand, his twitter account is not verified, and therefore no matter how many people think it's the real him, we have no way of knowing. Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to. I'm still in support of this ban (and remind people that if I remember right, some people were actually quite close to recommending a full site ban). gwickwire_editing 22:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If his boss thinks it's him, we can be pretty sure it is. Plus there are also reliable sources that have conducted interviews with Mousasi. Remember, Little green rosetta said "Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS?". Please elaborate on this: Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to.

Take note at the end that I said if the ban must remain, it sould be changed to Iranian and/or MMA articles. Mousasi and the edit conflict are not related to Armenia. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian" By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Has Twitter verified that? Not that I see. You continued to push the issue of using a primary source (regardless of whether or not it's him really) for what apparently was contentious facts after being told they were contentious. That's against WP:PRIMARY, which (not exact quote) says that primary sources must only be used for uncontroversial facts. Still haven't been notified, not sure about the others. gwickwire_editing 22:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. Which this wasn't?

How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Because he talked to him. Also, so does Bleacher Report, which has interviewed him in person.

I'd also like to see where it says Twitter sources must be verified. Not on WP:TWITTER, for one. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a boss talk to someone who was sitting in the restroom stall, thinking it was me. It wasn't. The WP:RSN is where you take questions regarding the reliability of a source - if the Twitter is contested, you go there for external advice/opinion - you sure as hell don't charge forward like a bull in a china shop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research: Misplaced Pages's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused on why you linked that policy, because it applies to 0% of what anyone has said so far. I'll also point out that you still have not notified all involved users as is required. Please do so before continuing. gwickwire_editing 23:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilkins is talking about his personal life. We can't have that shit here. And I've notified everyone, even though none of you notified me about my ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You made the comment "his boss thinks it's him" - I was proving how wrong you could be by example - and it was an excellent example. Your response was ridiculous, and had no regard for the discussion as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, you don't have to answer back. Really, don't go down that road. Your ban should be lifted, in my opinion, so just keep being civil and polite, and everything will work out (hopefully). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not notify LGR or King of Hearts. Please do so now. Bwilkins was well within his rights to provide disproof for your "it must be true" thing. gwickwire_editing 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here - Regarding just the Twitter account, I think we can take it as a reliable enough source. The twitter page is verified by his official website (unless we are disputing that fact), his official facebook page (same here), and the mma website. Which makes it a reliable primary source, in my opinion. No comments on the rest of the issues. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Twitter should only be used as a source when it is absolutely confirmed that the person's account is the real/official one (e.g. like Justin Bieber's), but even then it is usually better to find secondary sources. Now, in this case, I also happen to think that Gegard Mousasi's account is the real thing, and therefore reliable, but even if it isn't, User:TheShadowCrow's edits were all made in good faith, so I support lifting the topic ban, although it would be best if he could try to avoid using primary sources as references for vital information from now on. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question - How does one "absolutely confirm" if a person's account on Twitter is theirs? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The only way to absolutely confirm is if Twitter verifies that. Twitter uses combinations of photo ID, and other small things to even meeting people in person in the past to verify their accounts. This will provide a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter. Anything else is "maybe" "probably is" or unconfirmed nonetheless. gwickwire_editing 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, confirmation by a known official source is as good, probably better. The lack of verification from Twitter is often because Twitter hasn't asked, as according to their FAQ they don't accept requests. Peter James (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue that led to the topic ban(s) was that the user in question refused to listen when told to stop and discuss the reliability of Twitter, and then proceeded to continue to grasp at straws when told by multiple people it was not going to be reliable in this case, and continued adding it in. That's the issue, not the reliability of the source. gwickwire_editing 23:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban was based on an ANI discussion - IIRC. Is there a link to that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you had seen my appeal, you would have found such a link. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In the initial discussion, I opined that TheShadowCrow was now quite sufficiently "on notice" and that a ban was not required at this juncture, and I suggest that my position still holds. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Proposal:_topic_ban. Collect (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, somehow it did not get successfully archived in full. The entire discussion is at . -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It was a 5-1 discussion, with significant policy-based conversation, and not just 1 person's decision. Normal people just don't care about MMA, and thus the conversation didn't attract more people. As the topic ban was properly discussed, the editor had been blocked for similar reasons before (which counts as a warning) is there any good reason why a mere 7 days later, there is a request for removal of the topic ban? I have seen nothing new in the argument, and we sure should not be entertaining such a mere week later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think TheShadowCrow is missing the point that his use of Twitter was not the main reason for the ban, but it was his continued violation of WP:BLP. In the discussion, Twitter was just one of many examples. As noted in the initial ANI discussion, TheShadowCrow also misrepresented a source violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE in relation to the Karo Parisyan article and made a misleading edit summary reinstating unsourced POV in the Gegard Mousasi article as well, ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions. This is what TheShadowCrow should be addressing in this appeal, instead of focusing on the Twitter issue which is a very small part of the reason for the ban. BearMan998 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions"

This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• TheShadowCrow continues to belabor one point, losing sight of the whole. They were blocked for BLP violations, in a discussion that revealed his ad-hominem approach demonstrated here again. I don't see any reason to lift the ban, since they don't give any indication of understanding why they were blocked. Since they don't do that, they can't indicate how they would conform to our guidelines going forward. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• A quick point as my internet time will be very limited over the next few days - TSC was topic banned for more than just using Twiter - we also have disruptive editing, POINTy editing, repeated addition of unreferenced material, repeated addition of poorly referenced material, edit warring etc. GiantSnowman 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - ShadowCrow, If unbanned, can you agree not to edit the article in question, and try to avoid twitter as a reference because of the issues involved? It should be obvious that no matter the policy or guidelines, the issue is a contentious one. If the user agrees to the stated term, then I would support a removal of the ban. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I do. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but sadly that only addresses about 1/4 of the issues that led to your topic ban. Once you decide to follow the community nature that is Misplaced Pages, and address the other 3/4 of the issues, then I'd also be willing to entertain such a removal ... in a minimum of 3 months after it was implemented. However, since there's no sign whatsoever that you are choosing to address those behaviours - indeed, your poorly-chosen attack on Bearman above proves that you're simply treating this entire project as a battleground (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I attacked Bearman? He spends 80% of his time attacking me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

80%???? Seems rather high, compared to his editing record. (Hint: when trying to prove that you're not attacking someone, using skewed numbers actually is an attack) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, I once again suggest you ignore BWilkins' provocations. I still think that the topic ban we are discussing is not necessary nor is it reasonable, especially now that TSC has agreed to be more careful with his selection of sources. In any case, let's try to focus on the issue at hand, shall we? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom, I'll encourage you to pay a little closer attention, and stop referring to "provocations". ShadowCrow's topic ban was in part because of his incivility. He's not only refused to promise to stop his incivility, but it has been extremely apparent in this very thread. Promising to stop 25% of his behaviour is not sufficient - unless of course you choose to believe his rather cherrypicked story at the beginning of this thread. It's people who refuse to read that cause the most problems as they set expectations for editors that cannot be met. Pay a little more attention to the whole story, and not just the bullshit bubblegum you've been fed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read the archived discussions relevant to this case before commenting here, so the remark you've just made suggesting that I need to "pay a little more attention", besides being extremely ironic (given that it was you who didn't even notice the link in TSC's original statement), really is uncivil and fails to assume good faith. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know Daniel. But I couldn't let him fool anyone reading into thinking I attacked Bearman when I clearly didn't. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Shadow, you stated above "This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)" - that's a personal attack. All editors have the same rights to provide the same warnings on this project. The fact that your "opponent" gave it to you does not mean you get to accuse them of "thinking he is an admin". Your WP:BATTLE mentality and tenuous grasp on even the most basic of Misplaced Pages policies is digging you deeper and deeper. I mean crikey, when User:Dennis Brown !votes "oppose", you know you're in real deep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I was warming to you, but your wild accusation of personal attack is totally bogus, and your argument to use Dennis Brown as some sort of angelic Admin standard is beyond comic. You're picking on this guy, and references to his incivility in this thread up to now -- I don't see it. ANI = cesspool of irresponsibility, pure and simple. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No one has ever accused me of being angelic here. They sometimes mistakenly call me too lenient, but not angelic. I actually like TheShadowCrow, even if I think he needs to pull back for bit, have a tea, and catch his breath. Many people (including Bwilkins) likely know that I'm not a fan of interaction or topic bans except under the worst of circumstances, and I tend to tolerate heated discourse past the point that other admin might (sometimes to the frustration of those admin), for various reasons. I don't support a long term ban and I hope this is something that can be lifted in a month, but that is up to TSC. TheShadowCrow and I have been discussing this on my talk page, and I've offered to help him setup user space areas to edit, but my previous opinions stand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Lifting of Ban Per the above, TheShadowCrow has refused to address the reason for the ban (continued BLP Violations despite multiple warnings including POV edits with no sources and manipulating sources, edit warring to keep such edits, battleground mentality, pointy editing, ect.) and has not shown any inclination to change the behavior that led to the ban in the first place. BearMan998 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Bearman and Snowman both have their own fictional accounts of why this ban was placed, but the fact remains the ANI discussion was based off the Twitter incident. So, because the Twitter source was the topic that placed the ban, it should also be the topic of removing it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose simply because no valid rationale has been provided. TheShadowCrow has received an AE block for violating WP:ARBAA2, then I had to block him for sockpuppetry during that block at SPI . Then, this exact same thing happened again, violating ARBAA2 and sockpuppeting to get around it, just a few months after the first time. This was before the topic ban. And these aren't his only blocks , demonstrating a long term pattern. Through all this, he has a facination with using Twitter as a source for many "facts", in spite of being told that this is often clearly against policy, and almost never a good idea to begin with. Its a shame, as I've found him to often be quite reasonable, but when he isn't, he isn't. As it is, he is on the edge of an indef block for the next infraction, so tempting fate by lifting the ban seems a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter incidents have been addressed, so, in my opinion, it is you, Dennis Brown, who haven't provided a valid rationale. To quote User:TheShadowCrow: I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. He is right, too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The math is simple: a topic ban is going to be based on the history of the editor, a history I've used diffs to demonstrate. We don't topic ban for single incidents, we topic ban for people who show an obvious pattern of disruptive behavior. The reason for the ban wasn't "Twitter", it was his behavior. Twitter use was just the problem du jure when the ban was put into place. He has yet to accept responsibility for his behavior, and instead he attempts to blame shift, thus reinforcing the case for the ban. The history of edit warring, BLP violations, improper sourcing, sockpuppetry and WP:IDHT isn't overcome with a simple pledge to stop use Twitter as a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that a topic ban was an effective way to deal with sock puppetry. Silly me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: As DanielTom has now taken to disrupting this thread with hidden text that serves only to denigrate the poster immediately above, he has been requested to refrain from further posts in this thread, or else it could lead to a block. Please see his talkpage for details (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just don't see any proper understanding of the ban reason - or even any attempts to listen to or understand what people are saying here. All I see is battling argument, interspersed with the occasional personal attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I closed this thread at 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC) as (in my opinion) the way it was trending was more likely that more sanctions would end being applied rather than any reduced. I'm reverting that close as a courtesy (I think) to the original poster in response to a request on my talk page; my advice remains that the drop the appeal for now. NE Ent 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Editor doesn't get it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not only does this editor not get the point, but he is being totally disruptive from what I see. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Several of the opposition against me have based their opinion's off lies. DennisBrown claims I have a "facination with using Twitter" when I have never sourced it before. He also claimed I was "told that this is often clearly against policy" before I sourced it, yet that is untrue.
• This discussion cannot be decided by "user doesn't get it", facts are needed. I want someone who can tell me why it's ok for a normal user to threaten me with sanctions, when I was warned Twitter isn't reliable, how I can be banned from Armenian articles even though I didn't edit any, etc. The fact is no one has. Until someone can provide an arguement against me, this I won't stop defending the fact this ban was wrongly given. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. Indeed, having read this whole thing, I'm not even convinced this user should continue to edit Misplaced Pages at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Notice - Most of the Opposes fail to provide a reason. This provides nothing to the discussion. Unless the users care to elaborate, these should not be given much attention. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WBB ban appeal

I know this has already been requested at ANRFC, but can someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, the BASC, or any of the individual arbitrators assess the consensus and close the RFC for the Will Beback ban appeal. Thanks. On an unrelated and very sad note, Dreadstar, one of the administrators involved in the WBB case, has unfortunately left Misplaced Pages. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at it as I believe I am uninvolved, but I really don't know what it is. At least in my view, it's not an RfC or even an RfC/U. I've read what User:SlimVirgin wants ("a summary of the RfC's consensus on the various issues"), but if I hadn't read that and I were to "close" it, that wouldn't have been what I would have done. Considering the breadth of issues discussed on that page, summarizing all of them would be a significant task and I don't believe it would be productive or appropriate. The RfC (I'll call it that only because everyone else is calling it that) has a proposal. I would focus on that proposal if I were to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb, if you're willing to close it, please go ahead as you see fit. SlimVirgin 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is also currently discussed at BASC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at the AWB Checkuser page

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

There is a pretty big backlog at the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage. Would someone familiar with this process and has admin rights mind taking a look? Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper use of speedy deletion, asking for article restoration and review of admin's use of deletion tools

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

Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". The article has been userfied at User:Piotrus/Beautiful Store, and I think it is clear it does not fall under G11. I asked Deb for it to be restored, he refused, citing poor now poor grammar (discussion can be reviewed at User_talk:Piotrus#Deleted_AGAIN_how_should_we_do.3F and User_talk:Deb#Beautiful_Store_deletion. I do not dispute that the article suffers from poor (even very poor...) grammar, this, however, is not a criteria for speedy deletion (articles with poor grammar should simply be tagged wit {{tl|Cleanup-english}/{{Grammar}}). I told Deb he is welcome to prod or AfD it, if he still thinks the grammar is so bad as to warrant a deletion, but he still refuses to restore an article. I am therefore asking for 1) it to be restored due to improper use of speedy (with no prejudice for an AfD), and 2) for Deb actions to be reviewed. I am sure he acted in good faith, but I think he misunderstands when to use speedy (this is clearly not a G11, and grammar is not a speedy criteria), and needs to be cautioned (in a good faithed, friendly manner) to be more careful with the deletion tool. PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. PPS. Deb will be notified of this AN thread in a second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article I would have probably have deleted it too, it is very promtional, phrases like "Other than repairing the donated stuffs and reselling business, such as a beautiful Saturday, a beautiful apartment, sharing schools, shops moving companies or government agencies are campaigning to spread the culture of sharing and re-us" are blatant spam - The only way I could see it being a decent article is if it was started again from scratch - as the courses instructor it is your responsibility to ensure these students are aware of the standards we expect. If action is taken here it should be that you educate GaHee and his fellow students about how to properly add to Misplaced Pages--Jac16888 11:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what spam stands for? If you think some sentences are overly promotional (and I disagree on describing the one above as such), they can be simply deleted, leaving the rest of the content in the article. And the article clearly has some usable content, explaining the readers what this NGO does. For the record, this Korean NGO is similar to Oxfam. Looking at Oxfam lead, I see the following unreferenced text "In all Oxfam’s actions, the ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage their own lives. Oxfam works directly with communities and seeks to influence the powerful, to ensure that poor people can improve their lives and livelihoods and have a say in decisions that affect them. Each organization (Affiliate) works together internationally to achieve a greater impact through collective efforts." This seems about as promotional and non-neutral as the stuff in the deleted article - are you going to delete Oxfam now? :) Of course, nobody is going to delete Oxfam. Perhaps it needs to be tagged with {{Advert}} (which, btw, does not redirect to WP:SPEEDY, and if anyone would try to speedy articles in Category:Articles with a promotional tone it would be a quick path to being stripped of admin powers...). In both articles perhaps a few sentences simply need to go (promotional speak...), but speedy deleting an article about a notable organization is way to much - for anything, but an abuse of admin tools by someone who doesn't want to be bothered with a proper procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherstuff? The article is clearly and blatantly written from a promotional pov, if you educated its creator in how to edit Misplaced Pages then you did not do your job properly--Jac16888 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, would have deleted this. The tone is fundamentally promotional and this article needs to be re-written completely. Articles that describe the subject's "mission" in the opening paragraph are practically never worth keeping. Basalisk ⁄_berate 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherstuff is irrelevant here, as Oxfam page does not even carry promotional warning template, thus the cited example is for an acceptable content. Second, the primary problem is that G11 does not allow deletion of pages suffering from promotional tone; while I increasingly feel I am talking to the wall here, {{Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. G11 states, to quote it again, that it allows for deletion of pages that "that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The BS article was not "exclusively promotional", thus while quite possibly a valid target for being tagged with {{Advert}}, it is not a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since you're concerned about "proper procedure", the correct process for what you're trying to do would have been to take it to deletion review, and then if there are still concerns come here and ask for a review of the administrative actions taken. Basalisk ⁄_berate 11:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will head to DRV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note:Text of the article in question can now be found at User:GaHee Park/sandbox.Deb (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• That should never have been in articlespace. That should have remained a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT until it was ready-to-go, which will take a lot of work. Bad judgement and horrible expectation-setting by anyone who encouraged (now discouraged) this new editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's not a good idea for an admin to CSD borderline articles; CSD should be a two editor process -- an editor to apply a CSD tag and then a separate editor with sysop bit to evaluate and confirm / deny the CSD. Obviously vandalism / trolling articles should be deleted on sight, but this article is just really badly written as opposed to being obviously promotional. Difficult for me to assess as the references appear to be in Korean. NE Ent 12:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with that article is its grammar. Once it's been written to a pass-class level of English, it should be restored.--Launchballer 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion about undeleting the article is at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of searching I've found a few English links that might be of some use...

• http://www.beautifulstore.org/Eng/
• http://www.beautifulfund.org/eng/sub07/04.jsp
• http://avantageventures.com/avcatalogue/sv-%E7%BE%8E%E4%B8%BD%E5%B0%8F%E5%BA%97
• http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/SME%2BCentral/Story/A1Story20110202-261677.html
• http://www.korea4expats.com/service-Beautiful-Store-Resale-Shop-Seoul-769.html
• http://www.travelwireasia.com/2009/08/life-in-korea-the-beautiful-store-salvation-army-and-other-thrift-stores/
• http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2961055
• http://www.makechange.tv/videos/bonvoyage-e30-ases-nonprofit-and-social-enterprise-beautiful-store-south-korea
• http://tm.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121109000666
• http://www.oki.com/en/press/2013/01/z12109e.html
• http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121109000590&mod=skb

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, thorough notability is not an issue. You may want to add those sources to the student's talk page at User talk:GaHee Park, I am sure she'd appreciate any assistance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go and do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Revocation of talk page access for User:Sir Gawain McGarson

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

This is a sockpuppet I blocked in August of 2012 at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucretius. Since then, it has gone through some unblock reviews and he has pretty much devoted his talk page to soapboxing, in particular against the system and myself. I've much left it alone for a long time, it is pretty normal to vent and be upset and I'm not a stickler for how someone uses their talk page, but this is a sockpuppet and their only use is to update and refine a series of soapboxing posts. The fact that this has been the only edits and it has gone on for an extended period of time indicates he has no intention of using the talk page for anything remotely acceptable under our user talk page policies. They should be requesting unblock via their master account anyway. Since I'm the central figure of this soapboxing, I bring it here to allow administrative review of my actions in revoking talk page access. It is doubtful that many people watch his talk page, as this sock had few edits outside of his talk page, and my actions were based on what I felt any reasonable admin would have done. If any admin feels that I have acted in a biased way, prematurely or should not have revoked access for any reason, I invite them to revert, and notify me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

While I was reading your message, I opened a link to the userpage so that I could revoke talk page access as soon as I finished reading. If anyone complain about WP:INVOLVED, let me know and I'll re-revoke it, since I don't remember even hearing of this person before. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Standard offer - MidnightBlueMan

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

Unblock Request

I received UTRS Ticket #7429 from User:MidnightBlueMan who received a block for sockpuppetry and edit warring. The request was:

I've now been blocked for over 2 1/2 years. My block was for sockpuppetry, which I admit. Details: socks 1) Dragley, although technically a sock, the account was my first, and I didn't really like the name, so I set up FootballPhil and moved to it. I hardly used the Dragley account thereafter, and didn't intend to play it off against FootballPhil, but I think there are a couple of edits where I edited in the same general area. FootballPhil wasn't a name I liked so I set up MidnightBlueMan and abandoned FootballPhil (though I may have made a small number of edits thereafter).

I set up MBM as my "proper" account but eventually came across the Troubles (Ireland) issue and this, at the time, was my downfall.

Contrary to the sock report, the user Mister Flash is not a sock. However, he was a colleague of mine, who I shared a flat with at the time, and I recuited him to assist me with POV pushing. This went on for some time. "Mister Flash" has moved on and I now rarely hear from him (christmas card stuff). He may, or may not, still be interested in Wiki - I don't know.

Other socks were set up in shear frustration at being blocked. I made no bones about them being socks at the time and they were quickly blocked: SpongerJack CarbonNumbers BritishIslesPOVers

I understand the problem of socking and how it strikes at the heart of trust, a fundamental requirement - to be able to be trusted - of those participating in the Wiki user community. I won't sock again; It doesn't get anyone anywhere in the long run. For me it wasn't really socking, it was recruiting a colleague, which I know is just as bad, so again, this won't happen again.

I therefore ask, that after a considerable amount of time, I be given another chance.

The user wishes to invoke the WP:Standard offer. The user claims to have no socked in 2.5 years and has agreed to a checkuser. The user has preemptively agreed to a 6 month community topic ban from articles related to British Isles and a WP:1RR restriction if the community feels it's neccessary.

He has also suggested a sort of mentor:

If you agree to my request I would like to invite you, or your nominee, to monitor my work for six months or however long you deem appropriate.

User:DoRD performed a checkuser based on the IP Address in the UTRS system and has found no socks on that IP address. The SPI hasn't seen a sock since October 2010, and the old accounts are too stale to check for others.

Although the user has agreed to a topic ban or 1RR if the community deems it appropriate, I invite the community to start the discussion from the least restrictions and move up toward the most restrictive if a unblock is allowable.--v/r - TP 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sidenote: There were some privacy lapses in the SPI casepage from several years ago that should've never happened and violated the WMF privacy policy. It was cleaned up at the user's request and the offending revisions were oversighted, but the private data had no bearing on this request.--v/r - TP 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

MidnightBlueSun's responses

Thanks to TParis and all of you who have the confidence in me to agree my return. And thank you for also having the confidence not to impose mandatory restrictions. However, I think it is only right that I impose a self-restriction, so I give the undertaking that I will avoid all Troubles related articles for three months and also accept 1RR. I have a clear underststanding of what constitutes a Troubles article, but if anyone would care to monitor my edits over the next few months and if you think I've transgressed let me know and I'll immediately self-revert. I take 1RR to mean that I won'r revert anything, save for obvious errors and vandalism. Thanks again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Community Discussion

• Support with topic ban for 3 to 6 months on Troubles articles, no other restriction, encourage to get a mentor. This seems to be a proper Standard Offer as he has admitted the mistakes, it has been long enough and we have some evidence he has lived up to the requirements for the SO. In the spirit of what we stand for, I think we should offer this second chance. I would support without the topic ban as well, but the Troubles area got him into trouble to begin with. In order to give him every opportunity to succeed in the transition, it is in his best interest to avoid that area temporarily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support think a topic ban is wise but would be okay without having one if that's the consensus. Unless someone turns up recent socks or solid evidence that he's lying about something in this request I think he should get a second chance. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ~ two and a half years is close to an eternity here; if he's gone that long without reoffending, that's great. I would not support without a three month topic ban from The Troubles, just so's he can ease back in. And a mentor is certainly a good idea, but not essential. Cheers, Lindsay 16:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock: he seems to be "cured", and I certainly appreciate his honesty and candor. In my opinion, a topic ban is not necessary after such a long time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is why we have the standard offer. Once in a while it actually works.I don't see any need to formally topic ban them but they could always self-impose a topic ban if they are worried they will get into trouble in that area again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Honest admission of wrongdoing, no passing the blame, and a credible sincere promise not to do it again. The topic ban gives him the opportunity to demonstrate his worth as a productive editor. I have to say, "Welcome back aboard!". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support though I would strongly suggest that you avoid a contentious subject such as the troubles for a few months. Best to reintegrate yourself into the community in an uncontentious area. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with no restrictions or need for mentoring. I don't think we'll have any "troubles" from him. Chutznik (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 and Boston Marathon bombing

An uninvolved admin should check talk:2013 and see if consensus exists to list the Boston Marathon bombings on the year's article. Hot Stop (Talk) 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay banned

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 2 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Account creator permission usage

Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT:PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests

Hi everyone. There is a long backlog at CAT:EP awaiting edits to protected pages. Can someone take a look at it, since some items are even as old as two weeks? Thanks. — Peterwhy 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures

Hi. We have some issues here. Table which provided conflicting data, and which was misleading (expressed on talk page) was removed due to lack of consensus. But another editor Antiochus is desperately trying to push the table without consensus. He is not addressing my concerns, instead he is just making the issue personal. I wish some admin would come and check this out. Thank you.(Just 1 minute after he was reported to admins' board, he made another revert here breaking 3R rule as well. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see large amounts of what appears to be original research on your part, Hakan. Can you provide references detailing current military expenditure by Greece, for example, to prove your statement to be correct ? If you cannot, then removal of data based on original research is just as verboten as inclusion of data based on original research. There's also no consensus, you appear to be engaged in a one man crusade to remove the page of data that you personally disagree with. If you could please compile a list of reliable references showing the data to be out of date and providing new, accurate data, then the page can be altered, otherwise it is accurate and follows the references as best it can. I would also take this opportunity to caution you against providing inaccurate information here at WP:AN, and caution against edit warring.

I have locked the page for 24 hours, in that time, can you please find reliable sources to support your point of view, or cease editing the page completely until such times are you're able to compromise and agree with other editors concerning the direction of the page. Your unilateral edits are unhelpful at present. Nick (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There is no consensus to remove the table..so continuous removal is treated as vandalism. TheStrikeΣagle 13:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • First of all, there is no consensus to have conflict and misleading data from 2011 and 2013.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Strike Eagle, it was very fair (sarcasm) from you, that you don't say a word to the guy who was making the issue personal, AND breaking 3R rule just as he was reported, instead, writing comments to my page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan Erbaslar (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Whoa whoa whoa, hang on a minute strike eagle. Read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia in bad faith. Any good faith edit, even against consensus, is not vandalism. Treating it like vandalism will not save you from an WP:EW block in the future so be careful. You might want to strike your comment and change your direction on calling things vandalism.--v/r - TP 13:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Nick, please check my concerns on A, B,C , D, and E. on talk page.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find any blatant personal attacks from any other users in the page. Otherwise I would have warned them too. Instead of commenting on my actions, I very strongly suggest you look for the sources to support your edits. TheStrikeΣagle

• As Strike Eagle has mentioned you have no consensus and the 3RR does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism - blanking half of an entire article constitutes obvious vandalism. Also the Admins should be aware that I and other editors have communicated the need for consensus at the articles talk page and I my self have warned the editor twice at his talk page to refrain from vandalising the article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Antiochus, You said it was in the archieve that it was a consensus to have conflicting tables from 2011 and 2013 ? Yet you failed to show us. Now you are claiming that removed of data without consensus is vandalism? --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How could I possibly know what you already know? Anyway, from what I gather from the archives of this discussion page there is already an existing consensus to have the two tables single sourced from SIPRI. So no, you would need to gain consensus to remove the second table. For now, I will keep my eye on this article. Additionally, could you please clarify what it is exactly you don't agree with regarding the second table? I ask this because presently, the second table is inline with fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removing data without consensus is not "obvious vandalism". I'm still waiting you showed me the consensus in the "archieve pages", which you claimed. Where is it?

1) Claim of earlier consensus in the archieve, failure to point it out.

2) Breaking 3R rule.

3) Reverting the article EVEN AFTER being reported to admins' board.

4) For example, China has conflicting data. Big difference between numbers. No word about it. No debate about the topic. Because he knows the data is MISLEADING.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is correct, removing data with an edit summary explaining the reasons behind that removal does not constitute obvious vandalism. This is, as far as WP is concerned, a content dispute, pure and simple. What is needed is more references, especially up to date ones, which support either point of view in this dispute, and a compromise from both editors in question to allow accurate, up to date, correct data to be added to the article, and if necessary, out of date, incorrect or suspect data to be removed. None of that can be done without proper, reliable references, certainly not with original research. Most governments publicise their defence spending in their budgets, it should not be difficult for both editors involved to find correct, proper references and compile an accurate, up to date list. I would ask they do that instead of edit warring, warning each other and spending time here at WP:AN. Nick (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. There is already duplicate data for the top 15 countries. For example China's 2013 military expenditure is clear. However the falso information of 2011 is also written on the same article. So it's not about finding sources for the top 15.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

With the utmost respect to the Admin (Nick), your comment although positive and productive does show how far removed you are from the situation. Quote: "for both editors involved to find correct, proper references and compile an accurate, up to date list". I emphasise "correct, proper references". Can I clarify that SIPRI is both reliable and authoritative as well as being the #1 source on military expenditure. At present both tables are single sourced from SIPRI, as recommended by policy to single source tables for consistency, reliability and to avoid improper WP:SYNTH. The first table is sourced from the SIPRI yearbook for the top 15 military spenders and is updated every year using current exchange rates. The second table is sourced from the SIPRI database and is updated every year using fixed exchange rates. However, the second table is updated sometime after the SIPRI yearbook is released and thus why the table is presently "out of date". I have already communicated this to Hakan and urged him to be patient and await the SIPRI database update which will be available shortly. As Hakan has no legit policy issue it is my belief his edits are a deliberate attempt to destroy the integrity of the article while masking it as a "good faith edit".Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That explanation needs to be added to the page in question. It also needs to be clearly communicated to the reader that whilst spending as a percentage of GDP is the same (i.e France in both lists is quoted at 2.3% because of exchange rates etc, the dollar figure can vary). Nick (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Ignore that, such a description is found at the very top of the page. It perhaps needs to be made clear at the top of each table how the calculations are made by SIPRI. Nick (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Following my previous post, I would like to inform the Admin that the article used to be sourced from various citations provided by national governments. This lead to a table of 100+ countries using different citations each with different calculation methods and the sum total being given in national currency and not US$. This lead to edit warring on a continual basis and inconsistent figures derived from fluctuating exchange rates (i.e editors using an online currency exchange site to convert national currency to US$). The consensus was to use a single authoritative source with consistent calculation methods as per Misplaced Pages policy. The result was SIPRI and the article has been as such since.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus,

• Stop making assumptions about me and my earlier edits. Please address the topic only.

• Why does China have two difficult numbers from the same source on the same article?

• The data is conflicting and misleading and there was no consensus in the archieve as you claimed.

• When did I say I have a problem about SIPRI? Oh my God. do you read/speak english?

--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we stop with the personal attacks and unhelpful language, Hakan. I'd ask that you strike your fourth point and apologise to Antiochus the Great. Nick (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I apologize for all unhelpful language. However, I do not expect any real answer to the concerned points I have written above.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem Solved...

The issue with Table 2 being out of date can now be solved. The data needed to update table 2 (all countries data) is available now at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database and this ties in with the data from http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=458# used to complete table 1 (top 15 countries). That should fully resolve all the issues, if both parties can review this data, confirm that by updating Table 2, the issue is resolved, I will unprotect the page and allow you chaps to resume editing it. Nick (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, this is exactly what I and other editors have been waiting for, an updated SIPRI database. It appears the old SIPRI database is in the process of being overhauled and since the 15th of April the database is instead available for download in excel form -until the on-site database is up and running again post overhaul. Consider everything ok on my side and I hope Hakan will be satisfied with the updated SIPRI citation. In future Hakan, it would probably be best to place a tag on the article suggesting the table needs updating and/or raising the concern clearly on the articles talk page. Best not to delete half the article instead!Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone removing my edits

Hello. On April 16, I've made very useful contribution to the page "Ghurid Dynasty" (which is well sourced) and needed for the readers but someone is deleting it. What must I do to stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryM9944 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to discuss it at Talk:Ghurid Dynasty and stop edit warring. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

J. Leon Altemose is blatant COPYVIO. Need assistance.

J. Leon Altemose is 95% verbatim from "Downey, Sally and Jane M. Von Bergen. 16 April 2008, Philadelphia Inquirer, "J. Leon Altemose, controversial contractor, dies at 68" which can be found online at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002543/posts.

I do not know know to apply CSD-G12 to this situation, and believe this is a candidate because being entirely content that is another entity's protected intellectual property.

The article is no longer on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website (that I can see), but this article's content still belongs to the Inquirer and has not been put into public domain. The text of the article can be found on the free republic forums as linked above and in other locations online (which are likely COPYVIO also).

I noticed that the Altemose article was heavily reliant on this one source from the Inquirer...in fact, cited it 18 times. I gave User:SummerPhD, the article's creator, a week to revise and address these issues, but she has been belligerently defiant when this and other shortcomings of the article that were brought to light. I advised that other sources be introduced. She acted belligerent to the suggestion. I finally was able to locate the source article today, and noticed that the Misplaced Pages article is little more than a plagiarised reiteration of that source.

Thank you for your assistance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• And, quite frankly, User:SummerPhD is an asshole. Relentlessly abusive, unreasonable, acting like a petty dictator with rule enforcement, obstructive, etc. She's badgered people because they've disagreed with her AfD nominations. She tag-bombs articles seemingly immediately after their creation while it is apparent the creator is at that very moment working on them. Users like this drive people away from Misplaced Pages. I'm only concerned about the copyvio on this article despite how much this user irks me--but perhaps someone might wants to look into this user's pattern of behavior.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog