Misplaced Pages

Wow, I wouldn't have expected that you'd present yourself as such a clique so openly here. --Joy (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me??? "The harassment community"? You're defending someone who violates topic bans, canvasses supporters, threatens to out users, and tries to sneak his personal opinions into official policy by cleverly nested template inclusion. You are blatantly mischaracterising the underlying dispute, as well as importing it here. This discussion is not about diacritics, but about LBW's conduct. So please refrain from personal attacks, and keep the content dispute out of here. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact I have noticed that the anti-diacritic crowd does indeed get more sanctions. This is not because of unfair application, but because, on average, the members of that crowd exhibit a greater degree of battleground mentality than the pro-diacritics crowd. Indeed, Kauffner's own comment pretty clearly exhibits much the same, suggesting that those in favour of diacritics don't want to write an English encyclopedia and calling them the harassment community. And openly strategizing to keep them busy. So when he says his side is getting more sanctions, he can just look at his own comments and see why. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• As if anti-English crusaders don't violate any rules, or I don't who these people are. In any case, writing an article that English speakers can read should take precedence over expressing national pride by introducing non-English words and spellings. Kauffner (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself! Do you really think that those who are in favour of correct use of diacritics are anti-English crusaders? For what little it's worth, I am English, and I favour sensible use of diacritics. To suggest that anyone who takes such a position is motivated by 'national pride' is a wild allegation of poor faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you make my point far better than I ever could. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This user has knowingly violated multiple policies, multiple times. TCN7JM 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. I would support a block of specific duration not to exceed 90 days. My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite is not permanent. An injection of clue a few months down the line is always possible. For now, this is pretty open and shut. Opposes could scarcely be less convincing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  I understand that "Indefinite is not permanent". I also understand that many would object to an un-block request based on their own perception of what constitutes "too soon"; irrespective of any assertion of clue. I stand on my belief that 90 days is commensurate to the misdeeds I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  That seems to make it de facto a punitive block, however - 'he's done X, Y and Z, the sentence is 90 days'. Blocks are at least supposed to be preventative, not punitive - the thing to ask is, if we imposed (say) a 90 day block, would we be right back here on day 91? Signs point to yes - which is why indef is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It might also be pointed out that LBW has never once formally appealed a block. He silently accepts his "punishment", waits for it to run out, and then goes right back to exactly what he was doing. We shouldn't let him get away with this a third time. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, long overdue. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This voting section should be closed immediately as pointless. Risker stated above the block is being reviewed by Arbcom so the arguments and supports and opposes here are not needed. Arbcom will make the determination. Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Um, a community-ban and an ArbCom block/ban are two different things. Why do you bizarrely believe that the two are mutually exclusive? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom is reviewing a block based on "canvassing/outing". This discussion is about a block for "repeated flouting of a topic-ban". The two are seperate issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support has already violated his topic ban two times and has been blocked twice for it. Short blocks haven't been working so an indefinite block is the only option left. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The issue isn't that he thinks diacritics don't belong to an English publication, but how he manifests this with his behaviour. He is already subject to a topic ban which he considers unjust and has happily ignored on more than one occasion, and he continues to treat WP as a battleground. His statements above, the recent latent TB violations not sanctioned and his declaration that he intends to appeal the TB shortly without having demonstrated any sign of contrition are highly disconcerting. Going around accusing editors who oppose him "ultra-nationalists" and raising of an ANI complaint "bullying" are uncivil and unhelpful respectively. -- Ohconfucius  01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This may be moot, since LBW has been indeffed for outing, but I'll add my voice to the chorus. Unlike some of the others here, who have been waging a pitched battle against LBW for some time now, I have little to no interaction over this issue, but I generally support LBW's position on diacritics. However, this position appears to be a minority view, and I recognize that community consensus has primacy over my personal views. LBW's editing surrounding this topic has been clearly tendentious and disruptive, and it's obvious that he is either unable or unwilling to abide by the restrictions of the existing topic ban. An indefinite block is the next logical step, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean permanent. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom While I would definitely support on an indef, I find it pointless to try and impose blocks and/or sanctions here while ArbCom is already trying to work on a solution. Changed to support after review. Herr Kommisar 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As the user he "outed", I should point out that whether "outing" actually took place is sort of up-for-grabs. As I already pointed out above, LBW did not directly state my personal information in public. What he did was directly attempt to tie my new WP:CLEANSTART account to a previous account that had been outed. By a user LBW was colluding closely with. LBW, knowing all of this, posted the claim that this account is linked with my old one on about six separate forums (those are the redacted edits). While LBW's actions here make it obvious that he is basically malicious and did intend to cause me harm/out me, it is entirely possible that ArbCom won't accept this as falling within the standard definition of "outing". Therefore, this discussion needs to continue: no point letting him off the hook for all his other violations just because his harassment of me didn't technically qualify as outing. Konjakupoet (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does technically qualify as outing, actually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is ArbCom reviewsing the whole kit and kaboodle, or just the current block he's currently under for 'canvassing/outing'? Because 'flagrant topic ban violations' is a whole 'nother kettle of hagfish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Our review is limited to the alleged outing. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - LittleBenW contacted me on my talk page, which some call canvassing but I disagree with that assessment, as anyone is welcome to ask for help and I'm always free to disagree or refuse. That puts me in an awkward position that good judgement tells me I shouldn't close, although I would like to. Obviously, many think he is continually violating his topic ban and he should listen to them and comply with the spirit and letter of the ban. My concern is our ability to be objective at this point when determining a sanction. I've watched and given this a great deal of thought, understanding that many would mistakenly think this is a free pass, when in fact, it is only trying to uphold our ideals. If I were convinced that no one would object to my closing, it would be as follows:

The entire process has been messy, confusing, with lots of claims made (in good faith I believe) of outing, which ArbCom has decided is not the case, blocks and unblocks for outing and canvassing. At the end of the day, the well has become so poisoned, and many of the !votes now moot, that the entire process is better aborted. I don't think it is possible to reach a fair conclusion at this stage, nor truly determine consensus due to all these circumstances, and if the process can not be objective and unbiased, then I have no choice but to close as No Consensus at this time. I will note that there are a number of people who have issue with LittleBenW's activies here and I think there is likely merit to their concerns, so I would add a warning to LittleBenW that it is sincerely in his best interest to avoid anything that could be interpreted as voilating his topic ban, as he is likely to simply be blocked by a passing by admin the next time he violates the topic ban, without the benefit of a discussion here. I would suggest taking a few days off, collecting your thoughts and treading carefully for a while to prevent any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Committee has stated LBW's actions were not outing -- and, as the outing allegation is cited multiple times in the reasons for the ban above, I concur with Dennis Brown this should be closed as FUBAR. NE Ent 02:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I've stricken my !vote from this mess. The weight of the matter taints this discussion anyone who read it was likely influenced by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose community indef though I would support an admin imdeffing right now and leave it up to any admin to be convinced that an unblock is warranted.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• WTF - OK, if the outing part is incorrect, so be it. But why on earth have they been unblocked (and not merely had their block reduced) when no evidence has been presented to disprove either the canvassing, the constant stream of personal attacks, the topic ban violations, the edit warring? Surely those are all majorly blockable offences as well? ArbCom's decision baffles and infuriates me, ESPECIALLY as this ANI thread was opened with no mention of outing initially. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  ArbCom said their only role was to review the outing, nothing else, so there's nothing to blame on them. However, I don't quite agree with the "no consensus" close — most of the supporters of an indef block have said that their opinion is based primarily on the topic ban violations, not the alleged outing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  The original block length was three hours, it was then extended to indefinite as a result of allegations of outing. Since we determined that no outing occurred, we reversed this extension. The three-hour block would have expired days ago and, so, I decided to unblock him. Doing something else, in my mind, would have been disrespectful towards the community for they were already discussing the case and could reach a reasonable result by themselves and towards LittleBenW... Or, at least, that's what I thought at the moment. Salvio 07:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can only pop in briefly, but as the indef-blocking admin I have to comment. I thank ArbCom for taking this over on request, and I'm happy to accept their findings. What I interpreted as outing (based on information that is not public) appears to have been mistaken, and I offer my apologies to LittleBenW for my misinterpretation of the evidence. As my block appears to have influenced the discussion here, and as some people have made their choice based on the now-overturned suspicion of outing, I don't think a fair outcome based on the original topic-ban issue is possible at this stage. So I Oppose any sanctions on LittleBenW in this instance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close with 2 clear warnings to LBW: 1) any attempt to link an account with a previous account can be a violation of WP:OUTING if it was a valid WP:CLEANSTART; 2) Any (and I do mean any) violation of his topic ban will lead to an immediate block. From the above, it's clear that the community isn't tolerating and pushing of envelopes or other forms of mucking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's quite a bit of discussion about the unblock decision at User talk:LittleBenW#Unblocked on my talk page which may be of interest to people here. To quote myself from my talk page: "I do not know the user's identity and so cannot have "outed" him". (He links to his own former user ID from this ANI discussion; if that is considered to be "outing" then he has outed himself—some would call using multiple unspecified user IDs to attack other users "socking"). "I can accept that an Admin. would in good faith give Konjakupoet the benefit of the doubt, and block me for "possible outing", but I don't think that Konjakupoet's making such bogus claims to prevent me from participating at ANI (and to encourage people to vote to ban me) can in any way be considered to be "acceptable" or "good faith". LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• In my reply to Salvio on my talk page I also say: "The continuing vicious attacks on users who ask that WP rules on properly researching (in reliable sources) and neutrally reporting (NPOV) BLP names and place names indicate that this is an issue that cannot be solved by the community. Organized lynchings at ANI are not the answer, I believe. I think that the best way to solve this issue would be for ArbCom to consider guidelines. May I submit a case on this to ArbCom?" but I have not yet received a reply. Maybe I need to submit a summary of the proposal to ArbCom separately. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ArbCom does not comment on content issues, only those of conduct. While you could certainly try to press your argument of "organized lynchings", I suspect you'd end up with a pretty big WP:BOOMERANG upside the head if you did. Resolute 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will probably comment on the bogus topic ban here later (you can find some discussion on my talk page). (I'd prefer to get a decision from ArbCom on the issues involved). The discussions at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Google RS are also related and so may also be of interest. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see the open minds, and respect the concerns as well. LittleBenW was blocked for a time, so he has had some time to think about the situation. I think NE Ent summed it as FUBAR, which is exactly what it is. It is more comparable to a mistrial, not a declaration of innocence. It isn't anyone's "fault", sometimes these things happen even when everyone is acting in the best of faith, as is the case here. If LittleBenW moves forward from here and doesn't violate his topic ban, then he got by with a flesh wound and will have become wiser from it. If he really is unredeemable enough to require an indef block, then he will end up back here again soon enough, and a fresh process can be started at that time. I think it is important that we recognize when the process has gone awry and are willing to back away, making it clear to the rest of the community that fairness is important when deciding the fate of a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to point out that while this proposal is basically done for the moment, all of my concerns and the majority of the arguments for the block made by about 80% of the participants here have yet to be addressed. LBW should have immediately got a block of more than a week for violating his TBAN for the the third time, anyway. He has therefore been let off easy with only just over two days. He has also been making admirable use of his freedom since being unblocked -- going around numerous talk pages and violating WP:AGF by claiming that either Zebedee or myself manufactured a "bogus" claim of outing in order to silence him. I just wanted him to stop spouting BS about how I was "outcast by the Misplaced Pages community for being disruptive" or something like that. Frankly, I told him before posting here in the first place that if he violated his TBAN by reverting me one more time I would take him here, but then my immediate impetus for bringing this up was not a TBAN violation so much as a personal attack he made against me on Boneyard90's talk page. If he makes one more personal attack against me, I will post the same proposal as above again, and this time with no "iffy" charges. Consensus is overwhelmingly against LBW at the moment. He is walking on thin ice, and he'd better be careful not to slip. (Additionally, since my only interactions with him have ever been over diacritics, his making attacks against me could be interpreted as a TBAN in and of itself.) Watch your back, LBW: one more personal attack and I'm bringing you back here. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've only been here for 4 days (under your current ID), you might need to watch your own back - there could be a boomerang coming. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have eight years of constructive edits under my belt, and I have nothing to hide. I have already responded to your query below on my user page, but I'm not posting it there because it's void (the user in question was blocked on being found to be a sock). What boomerang could be coming? Whenever I get in conflict with people on here they tend to wind up either getting indefinitely blocked or having broad TBAN's placed on them, or getting so tired of consensus always being on my side that they just stop harassing me: why would this be any different? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't want to condone topic ban violations of any sort, this, particularly given the issue, is way overkill. A far more productive use of community time would be a comprehensive look at the diacritics issue. We don't want to be in the position of banning otherwise productive editors because we can't decide when a ' should go over a letter and when it shouldn't. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think LBW is productive? He hardly ever edits articles, and most of his talk page comments involve comments that are iffy at best and extremely poisonous personal attacks at worst. Anyway, you're late to the party. Consensus was in favour of a block but a mistrial involving ArbCom means that nothing will come of it. If LBW steps over the line again he'll be out of the frying pan, though. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that as a general comment about the diacritics mess not specifically about LBW. Apologies. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I know better than most how messy it is. That's why we don't need LBW and Kauffner aggravating the situation by calling everyone who disagrees with them an "ultranationalist" who "don't want to write an encyclopedia in English". Konjakupoet (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment We have common English language usage for place names, but we also have respected and independent data thereof, e.g., the BGN database. That said, when it comes to people, they are not places. Scholarly sources increasingly use Eastern European individual's "real" names. Making judgemental and baseless accusations of ultra-nationalism and complaining about said same individuals on the pages of admins or arbcom members is not the way to settle content differences. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I strongly disagree with the proposal to close this as 'No consensus'. There was a clear consensus in favour of the block, and the muddying of the waters regarding 'outing' was largely due to LBW's own disruptive behaviour. It should not be possible to avoid censure simply by messing up the process by which censure is decided upon. LBW refers to the topic ban itself as 'bogus' just a little further up this page, and that hardly suggests to me that he intends to abide by it. His interactions with practically everyone on this thread, and with PBS and IOO on his own talk page, show that WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND are still his method. And as for describing this as an 'organised lynching' - all I can do is suggest that LBW familiarise himself with the history of the southern USA, and with the meaning of the word 'hyperbole'. The accusations of poor faith against LBW's and Kauffner's opponents are getting to be extremely wearing, and not a little offensive. Do we really have to sit on our hands while the cycle repeats itself again? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Further Comment - I see that over at WP:TFD, LBW is back to his old disruptive habit of using the live site as a preview, or if you prefer, of repeatedly refactoring his own comments while people are trying to respond. At one point, I see 7 consecutive edits to the same section in less than 20 minutes. I can't tell whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, or a ham-fisted attempt at exercising ownership, but it's not acceptable. Numerous users have complained to LBW about this in the past. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that perhaps as many users as those who voted against a block have come back after the ArbCom ruling to protest the potential "No consensus" ruling. Don't worry, my friends: history is on our side. The tide of history is shifting, down the page, to a new discussion of LBW's latest TBAN-violation. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that my original call for an indef made absolutely no mention of outing anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the user continued to disrupt the workings of the site despite a mountain of requests and warnings not to do so. The user should be indef blocked until they agree that they will follow community consensus, even where they disagree with it. Lankiveil 21:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose its stale and Konjakupoet seems to have a battleground mentality that is all to frequently associated with this subject which makes it far from black and white. Put both of them on a 1rr limit and a civility warning. ----Snowded 06:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a battleground mentality. LBW and his friends harassed me for months before I left Misplaced Pages. Now I'm trying to come back, but they continue to try to force me off. I have never made a negative edit to an article to deserve the kind of comment you wrote above. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And can someone give LBW a new TBAN from CANVASSING?? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have received four warnings on your talk page from four different editors about insulting edit summaries and about attacking other users in just four days, you have been warned to cool it, you even brag that you can easily get other editors blocked at ANI because you are always in the right, and you are claiming that you don't have a battleground mentality? LittleBen (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Konjakupoet's behaviour aside, would you care to explain how that was not canvassing? Resolute 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick of LBW's personal attacks over this. I continued editing Misplaced Pages under my new account as though I had never left. This made some good faith editors think I was just being aggressive. But the fact is that the only edit war I have been involved in since coming back was the one where the block-evading sock-puppet Darkness walks started revenge-reverting all of my edits. When I asked him to engage me on the talk page he refused. He eventually got blocked. But, LBW, if you really think I am in some way a problematic user, why have I never been taken to ANI, and why have I never had community- or administrator-imposed restrictions on me? Seriously, instead of making one more ad hominem attack like the above, why not try posting about my behaviour in a separate thread here, or on AN, or on RFCU? Anyway, we need to keep focused: this thread is about LBW's behaviour. Since he was unblocked and the outing question was resolved, he has posted on numerous forums the ridiculous accusation the Boing! said Zebedee manufactured a fake outing charge against him to silence his voice here, canvassed some more, made the same repeated attack against me as above a bunch of times. And even though only two users (I think) who were not canvassed voted against him getting indeffed, more than that have come back and said he should be indeffed based on all of the objective evidence and nothing to do with the outing question. Konjakupoet (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see that you are continuing to stalk me and harass other users, and you blanked your talk page to remove all the warnings that you have been given. LittleBen (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

False Policy claims/interpretation

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

User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid a long time, multi-year editor of the article PIGS (economics) has come in quickly in the last weeks to turn over a long established and stable article that was the subject of numerous archived talk pages and a large number of editors on a number of wiki boards. His claim is that a wikipedia policy, WP:DYNAMITE, allows him to unilaterally dispose of a stable article that he himself was a party to writing. Nothing in the wiki essay that he claims as his policy basis could be construed as supporting his action. The largest problem with his gaming the system is he now has established a precedence and de-facto disposal of the community's accepted work. No one, especially not an involved editor, should be permitted to game the system and bum-rush a page to overturn longstanding and hard-earned consensus. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYNAMITE isn't policy. It isn't a guideline. It is the opinion of the people who wrote it, nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I can't see any evidence that anyone is claiming that WP:DYNAMITE is policy anyway - instead I see a WP:BOLD edit, followed by a discussion in an ongoing RFC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then is the basis for overturning a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus without merit?12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument that "a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus" cannot be changed -- even radically changed -- is without merit. Consensus can change, and it is fairly common for a stable article to have serious problems. Or for someone to think it has serious problems when it does not. The right thing for you to do is to participate in the RfC that is discussing this, work with the other editors to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, and for whichever of you has the consensus against you to accept that fact and to move on. At this time there is nothing here that requires administrator attention, but I would caution you to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it. The editor in question helped write it and made no attempt to change it in any real way until he popped up and threw it all out. It now has the magical "consensus" to keep the previous community written version out suddenly? The RFC appears over, a week after it started or so - and the elimination of all that the community worked on is gone. There was no effort at all (good faith or otherwise) to identify any issues until he eliminated everything without so much as a tagging of areas he felt needed to be addressed. And now I'm being warned away from an edit war? It's not like I'm going to delete an entire established article.....12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edits did you make to that article? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly polishing, I was actually (years ago) opposed to the recentism of the popular usage during the economic collapse. Now I believe that paragraph on variations (introduced by others) makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the term and its evolution from academia and analysts to the op-ed pages. I did introduce the limitations on usage by Barclay's and the FT. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it" argument should be made in the RfC, not at ANI. If your arguments are sound, then the consensus will go your way. ANI deals with user behavior, not with article content disputes. As for "all that the community worked on is gone", no, it is still in the history and can be easily restored if you get consensus to do so. Nothing you have described calls for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk)

So, it's the opinion of the Administrator's that deletion of entire articles is appropriate if one does it quickly and Games the system? There are two editor's who were previously involved in the article who opposed the unjustified and capricious deletion of content. I am surprised to see this lack of concern here, one would think that long standing consensus would have defenders. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Nothing at all has been deleted. Redirecting a page is not deletion in any way, shape, or form - no content is removed. It is in the history and can be viewed, or restored, by any user. The redirection may or may not have been appropriate, but it is not, repeat, not deletion, and I wish people (including some very experienced Wikipedians who I've seen do so in the past) would stop referring to it as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a redirection. (IP: 12.x.x.x ) .208.54.87.233 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 4 major sections, and only 8 sentences - and 33 references in the article. I've restored them in an effort to have any disputes identified, as per policy it does require at the very least someone articulating a content issue of some sort, somewhere in the article.12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Months of problematic IP edits

In February, I was alerted to the presence of 96.231.181.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after he added Category:Television series with live action and animation to a few articles on my watchlist, presumably just because the TV show itself contained some brief sequences in which there were computer generated effects or short animated clips (example. At that time, I also discovered that he had made the same edits to several dozen other articles (ex 2, ex 3) as well as using Category:Films with live action and animation (ex 4). I asked him not to repeat these edits.

It would seem he did not see my message, as he has gone on yet another spree of such edits (ex 5, ex 6, ex 7, ex 8, ex 9) and I've discovered these edits go as far back to when this IP was first starting to edit (ex 10, ex 11, ex 12).

This IP is clearly only going to continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages by falsely flooding these categories (as well as Category:Crossover animation in some instances) by adding whatever films or television series include either brief parts in animation or live action (if one is a film with actors or one is a cartoon series that has had brief living persons depicted). Seeeing as I found examples that were still in place since December 2012, I believe we should place some sort of extended block on this IP address (it most definitely appears to have been operated by the same person since that date) to prevent further disruption of the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No assistance or ideas?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I think this is problematic here. The IP has apparently violated WP:POINT and I think a block is in order here. Maybe ask one of the administrators to take a look at it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I posted this here for that sort of resolution.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"

We seem to have several contributors who insist that WP:BLPCRIME policy, specifically that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" doesn't apply to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and that we no longer need to refer to him as a 'suspect' or 'accused' - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Boston Marathon bombings (again). Can I ask that as a matter of urgency this issue is dealt with, before this gets even messier - it is an issue that IMO could well have legal repercussions, and needs sorting out before it gets out of hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"The media reports that he has confessed but he has yet to stand trial." (ref) Will that settle the inclusion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My take on it is that if the sources still call him a suspect, then WP needs to reflect that. Any other way of referring to him would be synthesising the material. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if other sources don't call him a suspect, we should not say anything that even implies he is guilty of a crime unless/until he is convicted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a simple writing competency issue—someone is a "suspect" until they are convicted. WP:BLP is the primary policy, but BLP is not really the core of the issue—it's just a fact that no one is anything other than a "suspect" until a court says otherwise. An encyclopedic article needs to acknowledge standard nomenclature. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a BLP issue since this doesn't work for people who died before they were brought to court. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are not "suspected" of having done their crimes, even though they have never been convicted for them (obviously). Fram (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That gets back to the only real question here. Since one brother is dead and the other is not, should the article be calling the dead one a "bomber" and the live one a "suspected bomber"? Rklear (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling the dead brother a bomber implies that the living brother is also a bomber, rather than a suspected bomber, since the two of them have been tied together so strongly. Thus we have to treat them both as suspected/alleged bombers, to avoid breaking BLP for the living one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is good to stress the need to be cautious and to bear in mind that persons arrested for allegedly committing a crime have not been adjudicated to have committed the crime. In many instances this means repeated use of words such as "suspect," "allegedly," and the like. The release yesterday of the person previously arrested and arraigned for sending ricin-laced letters to President Obama and others, who it now appears was completely uninvolved in the crime and was framed by an enemy, is a salulatory reminder of the need to be careful and avoid jumping to conclusions, both on-wiki and, for that matter, inside our heads. Mistakes do happen in both low-profile and high-profile criminal cases, and innocent people can be arrested and occasionally even convicted for terrible crimes that they did not commit.

Nonetheless, the matter need not be taken to ridiculous extremes. It is not possible to report the events surrounding the Boston bombing without saying "anything that even implies is guilty of a crime." While we certainly need to report that he has only been indicted and has not yet been convicted of anything, under the circumstances I will not lose sleep if our article on him does not reprint the words "innocent until proven guilty" in each and every sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I am looked at as lax about BLP, but the source stating that Dz admitted or confessed to the acts is certainly usable in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages, however, can not state he committed those acts in Misplaced Pages's voice per BLP. Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that noting the confession makes sense. (Carefully framed as being an initial confession made from a hospital bed during interrogation, etc.) That doesn't conflict with properly noting that he is only accused and is the suspect/alleged perpetrator elsewhere in the article. (It'd be good to get the two issues separated somewhat, since they really do seem to be separate things.) His confession doesn't legally mean anything; but the fact that he initially confessed is encyclopedic, even if it turns out to be a false statement or he manages to be found not guilty. (Edit: to further complicate this, WP:BDP applies to the dead brother...that might preclude the inclusion of the living brother's confession as it implicates the dead brother. That has harmful implications for his wife/child, for example. So maybe we shouldn't include the confession after all, due to that.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to exclude the confession if it's widely reported by reliable sources. That's the guideline for all matters, especially BLP issues. For example, even now CNN is still referring to the dead Tamerlin merely as a "suspect". Also, keep in mind that the alleged ricin mailer, now released due to lack of evidence, is a different story. These two guys were named as suspects based on relatively firm evidence, and there is a widely known timeline or continuum leading to the death of one and the arrest of the other. That's not the case with the ricin situation. Meanwhile, the divergent opinions of the suspects' relatives, while only opinions, have been widely reported and could be used here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The idea that we would avoid including any information in these articles that would "implicate the dead brother" in the bombing and related crimes is not reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. That's why we have to use the "hedging" words the media use, like "suspects" and "alleged". The media didn't used to do that in the old days. They would have just said "the bomber" or whatever. Now they hedge, in order to avoid being accused of biasing a potential jury. I'm also seeing a lot of criminal cases where the media will say "the police say..." which is also a good hedge. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's okay to say "suspect A stated that dead suspect B, his alleged co-conspirator, is guilty", based on the word of suspect A? How would that be different than, say, "police officer C stated that dead suspect B is guilty"? (The latter of which we surely wouldn't include.) I'm not sure my reasoning is correct, but BDP should probably be minimally considered. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bunches of (edit conflict)s, but this started in re to Collect 1251

Of course you are correct Collect, in fact, the neutral voice we are charged to uphold is sufficient in itself to explain how we are to write Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic prose. We can no sooner make statements of accomplishment, or philanthropic character; nor Tsarnaev exoneration, or statements of guilt. It's really the very basics of editing, and; I personally have observed the clue of 90% of the people who have edited or commented on this article; so I know that 90% of the editors involved are proficient; even masters of this basic required skill. The article is not in any danger, and I don't believe there's really been a serious content dispute. Differences have emerged, and been dealt with favorably, in good faith.

I would be remiss to not say that this is a dramatic over-reaction! And only part of that! Because there is also a current thread, on the exact same question, and both were filed by AndyTheGrump. It's truly incredible. The talk page is working fine, and that is where we should be. Perhaps this is a technique to canvass good eyes; Like posting on Jimbo's talk page, which I have done a time or three. And yes, any and all of these additional good eyes are welcome to contribute and watch the article. I'd just rather invite all of you without the extraneous drama.

I do not see it as an overreaction when one contributor, after asserting that An Innocent person would say "I didn't do it!" not "yes I did it and here is why I did it" and calling for us to drop the whole "alleged, suspect" stuff already , edits the article to describe the individuals unequivocally as the Boston Marathon bombers . It isn't our job to determine guilt - and there may well be legal repurcussions in doing so. I have no idea why My76Strat is suggesting that it was his comments that brought up the issue. It wasn't. It was Legacypac, who made the edit above, and - Epeefleche, who seemed determined to Wikilawyer around our obligation to refer to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a 'suspect' or 'accused', on bizzare grounds that seem to have no relation whatsoever with what the sources say about this case, and instead refer to some other entirely hypothetical circumstance, invented solely to confuse the issue. Anyway, I have no intention of participating in this ridiculous attempt to engage in trial by talk-page, and am done editing the Boston bombers article. Others will have to ensure that Misplaced Pages complies with its own policies, and doesn't determine 'facts' via talk-page debate, as some contributors seem intent on doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is an explanation here of the important distinction between saying: a) one committed an act -- which, such as bombing or killing is not in and of itself a crime (there are myriad defenses to it being a crime), and b) that one is guilty of a crime. Committing such an act is not in and of itself a crime, even if the act is an element of the crime. See Element (criminal law). I may admit I killed someone, for example, but then be found not guilty of the crime -- on the basis of self defense, insanity, duress, or any one of a number of factors.

WP:BLPCRIME refers to and applies to "crimes." Saying a person "accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." We can reflect that they have admitted to committing the act (if we have the correct RS support). But at the same time they are still only accused of the crime and not (until and unless convicted) guilty of it, and our coverage should reflect that as well, where BLPCRIME applies.

Furthermore, on a related but separate note, BLPCRIME itself states in footnote 6: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reasonable amount of "alleged" and "suspect" and "accused" words in the articles where they make sense for the flow - like "the FBI released photos of two suspects" or "The DA filed a complaint that accuses D of xyz crime. However since we have at least two reported confessions/claims of responsibility I believe we can safely stop adding these words into every other sentence and lay off some of the BPL citing. There is a clear hole in the BPL policy as it does not cover confessed perpetrators. Now the policy says nothing - I think it should say something like "a person who has confessed to an act or claimed responsibility for an act is presumed to have committed the act, absent substantial evidence to the contrary." Are the policies editable? Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This misses that the actual wording tells us to "give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting...(etc)". It doesn't tell us that we can't. In the hypothetical case of someone who was captured on CCTV committing a crime and then gave a series of interviews explaining why they did it but has yet to come to trial, we ought to be able to give that serious consideration without concluding that we need to remain circumspect.

In the present case, though, it needs to be remembered that the suspect is not yet known to have confessed, it is only reported that he has confessed. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read the BLPN discussion, Epeefleche is reasoning "saying that he committed a bombing isn't accusing him of a crime because it is possible to commit a bombing and still be legally innocent." You can interpret policy that way if you're being literal, but common sense says that that's not what it means. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another minor note, I don't think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a high-profile individual. While just an essay, WP:LOWPROFILE gives us some useful guidelines. Primarily, attention-seeking is the key factor; but from what we know, he did not intend to become known and thus did not personally seek attention, even though he obviously intended for his admitted acts to become known. He has not given any media interviews or similar; I guess you could call a bombing a "promotional activity", but again, he apparently didn't intend to be discovered. So I do not think we can simply ignore BLPCRIME based on him supposedly being a high-profile individual. Epeefleche's view makes perfect sense from a purely theoretical standpoint, but we need to consider what the reader might connect and consider. Very few readers are likely to presume legal innocence when a subject is noted as having confessed to a crime, so I don't think that line of reasoning makes sense here. (Note that I'm not sure at all if we should leave the confession out altogether, since it is encyclopedic, but other policies may require us to do so as noted; but I'm not really convinced it belongs in the lead, specifically.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow BLP and call the guy a suspect until he is convicted. The fact that he's confessed, even if true, means nothing beyond the fact that it's a fact that can be mentioned. It does not mean he's guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't even mean he's guilty as a matter of fact. False confessions happen all the time, which is why a bare confession is not enough for a conviction in court. BLP policy does not cover people who've confessed but have not been convicted for an excellent reason. They are not known to be guilty. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

However, Tamerlan (being deceased) is almost certainly never going to be convicted of anything related to the bombings. Canuck 04:48, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Also, Tamerlan provides an interesting wrinkle in everything, since of course he'll never be brought to trial. I believe for such cases we normally defer to the police's view unless there's reason to doubt it. However, WP:BDP exists for a reason, so as long as Dzhokhar hasn't been convicted of anything I think we should maintain an equally high standard of sourcing for Tamerlan. — PinkAmpers& 18:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that Tamerlan should stay as a "suspect" for sake of simplicity, for now, until the circumstances are clearer. I would not go beyond that. --Marianian 07:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan; WP:OWN issues, edit warring, and belligerent edit summaries

AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs) has had a reputation of edit warring in the past (earning themselves a ban only three months ago), and it seems they are continuing to do so now. The main culprit article is Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Although the first edit war is over (they wanted to add a series of images to the article, even when consensus was overwhelmingly against them. It only ended with a three-day full protection of the article), this editor has continued to be belligerent in other areas. Their edit summaries are rather aggressive, and s/he has often insisted that many editors other than his/herself are unfit to edit the article , thereby breaking WP:OWN.

Now, after I deleted a certain claim on the article, they've re-added it with a source; the problem is that the citation does not support the claim. I have removed it twice, explaining this, but I'm unwilling to get into an edit war and break 3RR about it. Despite talking this through on my talk page with the editor, they continue claim that the source does prove what they're saying, in the process asking why "I'm not at work" . It seems that they are either completely misinterpreting what the source says or hoping to deceive editors so they get their own way. Although I normally try to assume good faith about these things, it's becoming difficult to trust that this editor is not trying to declare ownership of the article or slipping back into an edit-warring state of mind where they are reluctant to discuss things properly. – Richard BB 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, this AN/I discussion has also had mention on my talk page, where both User:Blackmane and User:AnemoneProjectors have supported me, and I thank them for it. Blackmane has confirmed that the citation in question does not support the claim, while AnemoneProjectors has commented that AngieWattsFan's edit warring on Eastenders articles led to their first block. – Richard BB 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I support this. I came across AngieWattsFan in EastEnders articles but he has also been abusive towards me and other editors in relation to other articles - Noticeably University Technical Colleges. Bleaney (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand if people would like to have a discussion however, with User:Bleaney, you said something that was not true and needed correcting. My frustration is that you refused to correct and you ignored consensus. On EastEnders articles, I have been previously blocked and I accepted the consensus. As for User:Richard BB, you made an edit to a long-standing piece of the article and you clearly did not read the article otherwise you would have left it alone. You also should have tried to have a discussion on the talkpage, something that I accepted. On top of that, User:Rrius and yourself have been abusive in your correspondence towards me. I would like to question the motives of those who ar ejunping on this particular bandwagon.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Angie, not part of the article supports your claim about Ruth. Just because it had been there for a long time (unsourced, I might add), it doesn't mean that it deserves to stay there. I have challenged its inclusion, and still see no reason to keep it. I have tried discussing this with you; that is why there is a discussion about it on my talk page right now (where you have yet to address the points I have presented). And finally, neither myself nor Rrius have been abusive to you. On the contrary, I think your attitude towards him (and to a lesser extent myself) in the edit summaries prior to the page protection was awfully aggressive. And please do not accuse other editors of "jumping on the bandwagon" just because they disagree with you. — Richard BB 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats not accurate AngieWattsFan, With UTCs we were trying to discuss a rewording of the article, yet you threw accuations of edit warring against me as well as being generally rude about myself and others on other articles. Your default position seems to be accusing people of not knowing as much as as you when they disagree with you, and you just will not stop edit warring. You have even apologised for edit warring, but then effectively say 'But im right anyway'. I dont doubt that you are a good faith editor, its just that become very aggressive when others disagree with you, and seem to operate a 'its my way or the highway' attitude in regards to edit wars. Bleaney (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to emphasise that I am pointing out that the source that AngieWattsFan (abbreviating to AWF if that's ok) used did not support the claim they were aiming to introduce into the article. The wording in the source does have enough ambiguity that a quick read of it will give the conclusion that AWF came to, but careful reading of it will make it clear that is not the case. I also had a look at the other sources in that same section and their use for the claim being made, that a particular politician was a possible candidate for leadership of the UK Labour party in the 2010 leadership challenge, is very specious and warrants some attention, but that's for the article talk page. As for the "bandwagon", I have no horse in this race. I'm merely an ANI stalker who periodically seeks to provide an outside opinion on things that are raised here (maybe too often). Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan has now taken up this nasty habit of telling me to take edits to the talk page, despite the fact there is a dicussion on the talk page which they are not contributing to, perhaps a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Richard BB 06:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan has a habit of turning things against editors who warn him - you say AWF does not own a page, AWF accuse you of ownership. Similar things happened when he was editing EastEnders character articles. Eventually he did accept the consensus, but it was hard work to get there and it involved a lot of edit warring, instead of discussion beforehand. I think AWF should have learnt from that experience, but he didn't appear to have done so. Perhaps a block is necessary? I'd prefer a different, uninvolved admin to consider this though, if that's ok. –anemoneprojectors– 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support a mid-term block. Despite the fact that AWF is (it appears) attempting to make constructive edits, they consistently fail to work with others, edit war and become abusive towards others. It seems as though all AWF has done is take this disruptive behaviour to another part of Misplaced Pages after being thwarted in EastEnders articles. Bleaney (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are some WP:CIR issues along with WP:OWN, WP:EW, and WP:EQ. This sort of behaviour is exactly what s/he was blocked for in the past, but they do not seem to have changed their attitudes. — Richard BB 10:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief protection of the page so that things can be properly hashed out on the talk page without the edit warring. I wouldn't oppose a block, but page protection for a bit might do the trick. Blackmane (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Yintan

User talk:Yintan has made unexplained removals of content in the article palingenesis. He claim such edits to be vandalism and disruptive but fails to argue for his point or provide evidence. He further more ignores warnings. 130.238.141.152 (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And...you notified him of this discussion, right? Never mind, I'll do it. TCN7JM 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

130.238.141.152 and 130.243.168.103 (same person?) kept adding the same unrelated photo to the Palingenesis article. User:Faizan Al-Badri and myself removed it, feeling it was completely misplaced (if not plain vandalism). I asked 130.243.168.103 for an explanation, first via the usual template ("If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page") and later direct, but never got an answer. Now 130.238.141.152 has taken up the axe, apparently. That's all I have to say, really.  Yintan  12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you got an answer, dont lie and I explained very well the inclusion in the edit sumary many times. Maybe Yinta should also use the edit summary to explain his removal of relevant content and, second, read the article before claiming IP edits to be vandalism. You should also always asume good faith, no matter if the edit was done by an IP or a regular user. 130.238.141.152 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not lying. 130.243.168.103 never answered me. The history of the article and the Talkpage(s) speak for themselves. Also, I did read the article, that's why I thought adding that photo was ridiculous. Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to bicker here. I've made my point and I haven't touched the article since. Like I already told you on my Talkpage a few hours ago: "I still think the photo is completely misplaced but I'm not interested in starting a war about it. I'm sure another editor will remove it again" and I just noticed that has happened indeed. So I'll let others decide what's best.  Yintan  16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: are you Yintan contacting other established users trough IRC or some medium to edit the palingenesis article in order to circumvent the WP:3RR? –130.238.141.152 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Stop accusing me.  Yintan  17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• My take: Yinta, as tenuous as the connection of the image to the article is, there is still some sort of connection, so I wouldn't call it vandalism in the Misplaced Pages sense (and the distinction between vandalism and non-vandalistic disruption does matter, so labeling vandalism correctly is somewhat important). That said, the IP editors are also edit-warring to keep the image in the article (and Yintan to a lesser extent), which is still disruptive: the onus is on the editor who adds the material to gain consensus that it is acceptable to add before re-adding it. I'm going to drop a warning about edit-warring on the IP's talk page; in the meantime, I see that other editors have also reverted the image, and would say that that's a reasonable preliminary consensus that the image should not be added to the article without further discussion. Incidentally, accusations of off-wiki canvassing are totally unnecessary: 130, this extra attention from other editors is simply what happens when you make a post on one of the most heavily-monitored pages on Misplaced Pages.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  Yintan  17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper. Hope your intervention will bring us to a discussion in the talk page. Second, Yintan, I did never accused you of circumvention the WP:3RR rule, because I assume good faith, and it was therefore I asked you about it. Well, this tread is getting lenghty and needs to be closed. -130.243.168.103 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You "assume good faith" so you don't notify me of this ANI report you filed, you don't answer my first question on your Talkpage(s), you accuse me of lying, and you ask me if I'm canvassing. Interesting definition of 'good faith', I must say. In any case, I'm finished with this and really don't feel the need to discuss this any further. Cheers,  Yintan  21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not only Yintan that reverted edits, I was also involved and the thing which we reverted was Vandalism apparently. Blaming such editors is not appropriate at all you should mind your language, instead of the discussion at the article's talk why is this matter being discussed here? Faizan -Let's talk! 09:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

People, settle down. There is a discussion on the article's talk page; let's focus on the content and discuss the issues there. Incorrect accusations were made by both sides (vandalism on one and canvassing on the other), so in the principle of letting them who have not sinned cast the first stone, let's just chalk the conduct issues to people getting a little too worked up and move on. I've participated in the talk page discussion since my last post here, so I'm not going to close this discussion myself, but I'd recommend that someone else close this thread as no further action necessary, directing everyone still interested in the issue to the article's talk page and the discussion there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-running disputes at the Barelvi article, and similar articles.

I'm going to try and avoid as much of the content dispute as I can here, but obviously I cannot fully avoid this. I'm going to primarily talk about the Barelvi article, as that is where I've been party to. Now, this has been at ANI a couple of times in the last few months, and doesn't really seem to have been resolved, despite various temporary blocks, and full-protections of the page. There has been multi-way edit warring - of which I am guilty of, to a degree, although I've tried to keep the article to the version established by a consensus. The primary offenders are Msoamu (talk · contribs), whom is currently part-way through a one week block for edit warring, and Am Not New (talk · contribs).

Msoamu is constantly warring to remove what he views as non-neutral views, regardless of the consensuses at the talk page, and has often referred to MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), whom has been diligently working to try and get a neutral article, with inflammatory comments and edit summaries, predominantly centering around what Msoamu believes MezzoMezzo's religious stance is, or accusations of bias aimed at MezzoMezzo. Examples of this include:

• - "wahabi views are written in various wahabi pages.It is Barelwi article,rv wahabi invalid undue criticism"
• - "Now there is consensus,In Terrorism heading at least.also i have demanded RS for blatant MezzoMezzo's POV"
• - "There are relation headings/barelvis practices must be about their practices only.NOT POV of Wahabis"
• - "Terrorism heading is 100% relevant and important.MezzoMezzo you have added here minute details of events to show it in bad light and now opposing highly relevant heading"

It must be noted that Msoamu and MezzoMezzo have been involved, on and off, in this dispute since 2007, as can be viewed here.

Am Not New is a different kettle of fish, but no less of a problem. The user's name claims that they are not a new user, yet they have also made the statement that they are - I cannot remember where that was, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. This user seems to be disruptive across a lot of articles, but again, I'm sticking primarily to the Barelvi dispute, which is where I have witnessed the dodgy edits. Examples of POV-pushing include:

• - "Many people say many things about barelvi.it dosent mean to add everything here.it is barelvi article" - ignoring the fact that a consensus had been established on the talk page to include this information. It also made that paragraph far more biased to the Barelvi sect, and generally less informative. Upon being reverted, they then re-removed a (slightly smaller) amount of content, this time without any edit summary: . That removal was also reverted by another editor, whom I haven't seen edit the article before (which is generally a sign that ANN's edit was bad)

"a consensus had been established on the talk page" where is consensus on talk page regarding this passage? mr lukeno the consensus was made on history topic see.you,MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and Msoamu (talk · contribs) were fighting on history topic.the passage which i edited was totally different.i was particulary editing beliefs.which was my main subject as i improved it before.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• - removed as WP:OR by User:Qwyrxian. It had previously been added, and removed by MezzoMezzo.
• - an edit that was quite promotional of the added person. The excessive info was removed, then re-added , then removed again (by me, this time), readded once more , and removed by me again.

Obviously, there's a lot more than just this, and it's spread over quite a few articles, but I digress. I have two proposals for each user:

• Proposal 1: Both editors are topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 1 year. Any violations of this topic ban would result in a resetting of the ban to its original length, and potentially a block. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).
• Proposal 2: Msoamu is blocked for 3 months, then topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 9 months. Am Not New, due to their lack of positive edits generally (in my experience), should get a 6 month block, and then a 6-month topic ban. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).

Since some of these disputes date back all the way to 2007, it's high time this ended. Due to Msoamu's long history in this area, I'm more than happy to see a lengthier topic ban, if that's what consensus states (including an indef topic ban). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose i think the proposal is abit harsh and seeing that i have offered to meditate afew days ago..i say we give these editors a second chance before topic bans Baboon43 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As that user already said that i am not related to this discussion and i didnt made any such edits for which i should be block.these last two edits related to tahir ul qdri is not related to this dispute.as concerned with edit of grave worshipping i had seen it irrelevent so i removed.but let me tell you two other names which are part of this dispute.which are engaged in edit war since years.these are Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) both of these are main personalities behind this warr.and an important part of this disputes.especially MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs).i request you to see the edit history of Barelvi.

• seriously these users too should also be blocked.

Proposal: 3 years block of all religious articles for MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and 1 year for Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

• i want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've not hidden the fact I've been marginal at times. MezzoMezzo has actually not edit warred very much at all, in recent times: it's mostly other users restoring his edits. Your proposal is pretty damn POINTy to say the least. In fact, MezzoMezzo has only reverted you a couple of times, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am talking on this dispute and edit warr running from years.Sir admin.MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) Msoamu (talk · contribs) are three users are fighting from years on this article and similar type of articles(as they accepted it).where msamu tried to show his prospective(barelvi) there these two were trying hard to show thier(non barelvi) side.i am talking about years.look at thier talk page archives.here you will find many warnings and fights.dear respected admin if you block only masamo i will be unjust,you should also ban these twoo users.to cool this topic it is necessary to block both parties.thanks Dil e Muslim talk 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to WP:RS.

Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Misplaced Pages and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason, removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here. Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

well i realy think it is you coz there is a complaint against me and you are trying to blame me by making different type of dramas by some ips.i didnt made any edit even.Dil e Muslim talk 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think banning Am Not New (talk · contribs) will be a bit harsh. Although he has been involved in some edit wars and been engaged in conflicts with me, he seems to have seized his edit warring. I think that an Administrator giving him a strict warning will be more appropriate. I think that assuming his good faith is the best option as I think that he can make important contributions. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am Not New, an IP makes the same edit as you 3 or 4 times in a row, and you expect it not to look suspicious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As i already said may be it is your ip.as you are trying to prove me problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And dear user lukeno90 in your edit you are using abusive words like "kettle of fish" "dodgy" for me.this is a straight personal attack.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? Kettle of fish and dodgy are personal attacks? Really? If you think kettle of fish is a personal attack, then I'm not sure that your English is good enough for you to edit on the enwiki, and you should go to your native wiki, for WP:COMPETENCE reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Luke here...neither of those are even remotely personal attacks in any context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I will buy you an Amazon gift card if you stop using asterisks for your comments and start using colons. It's a personal preference thing obviously which is why I'm offering a bribe. Laugh out loud. Anyway, damn man...I left Misplaced Pages for three days so I could spend time with my family and...well, what happened? The sock puppet investigation is very necessary and I will post more diffs there shortly but that's neither here nor there - if there is sockpuppetry involved, it would be a separate thing and the behavior here is a separate thing.
Msoamu's block will be finished by tomorrow and I think this discussion needs to continue. I can bring diffs, but I think Qwezrxian as the supervising admin - yes, I'm putting you on the spot unfortunately - can either confirm the following as true or deny: Msoamu has, at multiple times, blatantly edit warred against consensus. Hell, it's why he was blocked most recently. He received a final warning along with myself (I volunteered to submit myself to such a warning, FYI) which Qwerxian can also attest to. Qwerxian, as the supervising admin, I would also like to put you on the spot to confirm or deny: Msoamu hurls personal attacks frequently and has not ceased doing so over the years.
Alright, that's the factual stuff. Now, from objective to subjective: Msoamu isn't here to help Misplaced Pages. He's here to push a certain POV. That's one. He is rude when people disagree with him. That's two. He will edit war even against consensus to support that POV. That's three. I am willing to go through every single edit he's made since 2007 to prove that he has never, ever added constructively to Barelvi or related articles, I mean that. That's four. He's been warned enough. He deserves a topic ban. Let him comment on talk pages if he can be civil, but there is no reason to allow him to edit because he has not ever edited constructively to improve the encyclopedia, and we now have reason to believe that he will not ever do so.
Regarding Am Not New, then I need to go to the bathroom and do some stuff and I will get to that in a minute. But regarding Msoamu, we need to hear his defense and I would like some community input - obviously, wide community support is needed for a topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Canvassing completely out of control

• Talk:K._P._Yohannan#Keeping_the_controversy_Section_in_this_article

Hi. :) I protected this article pending discussion and resolution of a content dispute. The RFC at the talk page has quickly spiraled out of control due to obvious canvassing, probably on both sides. (Far more successfully on one, where over 40 brand new contributors have quickly showed up to oppose inclusion of controversy on this religious figure.) I've already interacted with the article as an admin in protecting, and would really appreciate some more eyes on this. I have to say, I've never seen canvassing this blatant, but maybe that's because I don't hang out at AFDs. :) I have no idea what can or should be done. --Moonriddengirl 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too, but I'm equally at a loss; my only idea was to open an SPI to see if any were socks, rather than canvassed people. Not sure there's much point to that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper, if you don't open an SPI, I will, it'll be interesting to see if they are linked or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Go for it; I don't even want to get into figuring out which is the master for the SPI title. (Maybe User:LoveYourNeighbor1?) As far as the RfC itself goes, it should just be scrapped; it'll be very difficult to tell the canvassed apart from normal editors (indeed, I'm not even sure there are any normal editors that have commented). Speedy close as no consensus due to canvassing issues and start anew, I guess. Maybe start the new one on a semi-protected page, as horrible a hack as that is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's a zillion with red links for their user and user talk pages, and where their lifetime edits consist only of this RFC, so I think it's clear this is more a socking than a canvassing issue. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC is about inclusion of a section which is a complete mess. It needs radically rewriting (there are sources on the talk page), and then rebooting the RFC to discuss inclusion of a section that's actually comprehensible. Rd232 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• SPI filed: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aphoristofold. May be the wrong starting username, but that can be sorted during archiving, if necessary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just endorsed for a CU, but it is up to the checkuser to determine if a check of the logs is warranted or not. Probably can be handled from there now, since the RFC was shut down. Shutting down an RFC is unusual, but I think Future Perfect made the right call in doing so. Looks like CU/Arb Courcelles is already part way through the list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like User:DeltaQuad has blocked most of the crowd but it is a messy CU. My advice is to treat any obvious meatpuppet gaming the system like a meatpuppet, applying blocks if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Moonriddengirl. I do hang out at AfD and I've never seen anything remotely close to this mess. I'd advise admins to get the banhammer going, socking to subvert democracy should not be tolerated. It's a ridiculous situation. Carrite (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange phenomenon

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

− I don't know if this is anything sinister, but someone or ones seem to be creating new accounts, then making a few edits (described as "cleaning up") which do nothing except remove redundant (but harmless) spaces from the wikicode. Possibly they're just having fun, or possibly they're trying to get a number of accounts autoconfirmed for some reason. Or something. I've spotted accounts called Zahara33e, Wellyshore and Hollylilholly doing this. Victor Yus (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Throw in User:Teddywilson33 as well; just pulled the same trick at theatre and painting. It is very suspicious; the number and the common edit summary make this seem to be sockpuppeteering at the least. though for what purpose I don't know. We need to keep an eye on this.oknazevad (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. Here's a list of all I've seen so far:

Teddywilson33 (talk · contribs)

Derek1uk (talk · contribs)

Welisongered (talk · contribs)

Hollylilholly (talk · contribs)

Dominikretro (talk · contribs)

Wellyshore (talk · contribs)

Jimmyjames444 (talk · contribs)

Zahara33e (talk · contribs)

Fred88freddy (talk · contribs)

Shellystander (talk · contribs)

Kerriforwiki (talk · contribs)

Jenfan33 (talk · contribs)

Not quite sure what they're up to, but the autoconfirmed thing would be my best guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is likely to have autoconfirmed accounts, so that they can be used to create articles, upload files, etc. Possibly part of a paid editing operation. §FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the same phenomenon on a number of articles maybe a month ago, and figured that these were just well meaning editors? -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The first few I checked were just checkuser blocked, so maybe there is something more going on. Jauerback/_dude. 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Block when edits become unconstructive.--Launchballer 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of that kind of thing. I see it all the time when doing page curation. Minor edits to become autoconfirmed, then BAM a whole article from nothing (or a sandbox). And then if you follow up a couple of weeks/months later, no more edits ever. §FreeRangeFrog 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. Looks like DQ has now checkuser blocked them all. This is why it is good to bring it to admin attention when there is a clear pattern of unusual edits. Not jump to conclusions, just point it out so a checkuser can determine if it warrants a closer look. Often, it is nothing, other times, it is a nest of sleepers. This time, it was a nest of sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• SPI is here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ExtraBart -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting and thanks for providing the link, would the CU have caught them all or should we check our talk pages for suspicious activity? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that DQ checked for sleepers and caught anyone that used that IP to create accounts, based on how the paperwork was done. I've tagged the socks and closed the case there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's likely I caught them all that exist now, but I'd watch in case he decides to come back, as a have a few more tricks up my sleeve. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User keeps moving back the page unilaterally after closure of requested move discussion

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

The discussion at Template_talk:History_of_the_Turks_pre-14th_century#Requested_move was closed by an uninvolved editor and the page was moved . Yet, User:Qara xan keeps moving the page back unilaterally . I warned him already , but he's still doing it . Cavann (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the template back to the title decided on in the RM and move locked it. I will also warn the editor not to make any further edits to the template in this vein. Cheers, Number 57 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx! Cavann (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.

Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.

The edits at issue in Black Panther Party: -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact

At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director:

There have been discussions at RSN already about:

the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)

the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)

(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)

Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.

I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.

I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.

The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.

And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Misplaced Pages forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indef full page protection due to one editor

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

Secular Islam Summit is indefinitely fully protected due to the chronic edit warring of one editor. Unfortunately it is her version which has been protected. Could someone revert to the stable consensus version as it existed prior to the latest round of POV pushing? — kwami (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See meta:The Wrong Version. The point of page protection is to stop edit warring, so it does not matter which version is currently up. Also, indefinite does not mean infinite — the page will be unprotected as soon as the disputes are resolved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it's also common to revert a page to the version before an edit war, especially with repeat offenders. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is a BLP violation or other serious error, it is not done. Protection should not favor one view over another, even if it's against a repeat offender. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct. That goes doubly when the editor raising the matter of changing the protected revision was plainly knee-deep in the edit war that saw it protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I fail to see why it's not it's perfectly acceptable to revert to the consensus version if it can be ascertained. We are here to write articles, and if something prevents the consensus version of an article appearing then that measure is at fault. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It makes sense to me to use the last version that appeared to have consensus, which could be determined by the amount of time it remained un-edited. While there's been a few days here and there since, that would be this version from Sep. 2012, which remained for ~6.5 months. A diff with the current version shows a few minor things, like links and refs, that could be added. —— 08:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur -- one editor cannot edit war by themselves. Reasonable protection, discussion should continue on talk page. NE Ent 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? We have one person who reverts three times against multiple people and continues an edit war that previously happened against yet other users. This definitely looks like one person determined to have her way against everyone else. Discussion is the responsibility of the person who seeks to change the established version, not everybody else. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It always takes two to edit war, and plainly both sides were happy to keep stabbing the undo button until prevented from doing so. It doesn't send out the right message to alter the revision that was protected at the behest of one of the involved parties unless, as KoH suggested earlier, there were egregious problems with the Wrong Version. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It only takes one determined editor to edit war, it's just a matter of how much value people place on the revert. If it was a BLP or vandalism I think your response would not be "It always takes two to edit war". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is the first I've heard of this discussion, but I'm unfortunately not surprised to see that Kwami's making trouble again. Notice how s/he stubbornly refuses to use the talk page while Adjwilley and I are hashing out the right way to include the material (which only a single-use IP has tried to remove entirely)? And how Haddad's comment has been in the article since July 2012 - literally almost a year? "Nonsense" is perhaps the nicest word I have for the claim that its removal is enforcing any sort of consensus, and I'm ashamed on Nyttend's behalf that sysop-only editing is being abused to further a content dispute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was not informed of this thread, but I am the protecting administrator. I've already handed out blocks to Roscelese and kwami over this issue, and I thought protection might be a better approach since other editors are involved and I really want to encourage discussion instead of locking out well-meaning editors. I do not agree with Nyttend's action and I view it as inappropriate, especially considering I already told an editor that the protected version would not be changed. I request that Nyttend's action be reversed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Upon further reflection, I see the rationale for Nyttend's action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like Nyttend's action is 'involved' so I wouldn't characterize it as admin abuse. And there is nothing wrong with restoring a protected page to a prior stable version which is what I'm assuming Nyttend has done. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your assumption is incorrect - that's the whole problem. That comment and source have been in the article since last July; it's only in the past two days that a random IP removed them, and that's the so-called "consensus" that Nyttend decided to go with for...let's say for God only knows what reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Masem keep violating Manual of Style/Captions

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

Theres this discussion on Manual of Style/Captions and how they should be used. In my opinion, there should not be any change to the rules/guidelines and how they are interpreted until theres an agreement in the community to change them. Still this user keeps on reverting my attempts to follow these guidelines. Jørgen88 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to provide some diffs of problematic behaviour by Masem (and prior attempts to resolve this with the user first) if you want people to investigate this. Fram (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit warring on a handful of articles on AAA video games regarding an ongoing MoS RFC. The RFC isn't closed and from the perspective of a prospective closer I don't think the settled consensus is anywhere near as solid as Jørgen88 claims it to be; as such, he probably shouldn't be trying to enforce it for the time being. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, for what its worth, I've been interacting with Masem for years on the project, and he's probably been one of the best as far being collaborative, following policy, and discussing things out, so I can't help but think this is a bit premature... (or outright wrong.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree - what is so urgent that this needs to be addressed NOW, while the discussion is still ongoing and the RFC still open? Hey guys - how's about you do nothing at all with this particular MoS guideline until the RFC closes? Seems to me that enforcing a guideline that is under active discussion, and doing so under an interpretation of the guideline that has been questioned in that very RFC, seems to be WP:POINTy behavior intended to provoke a reaction. Why bother? If your intent is to convince other editors that your position is the correct one, then wielding it like a blunt object is not going to help - quite the opposite. Please stick to the discussion before stampeding off to enforce the holy dictates of the MoS. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been noted, I started the discussion (I can't remember if I made it an RFC or not) when Jorgen removed long-standing captions out of the blue and noted that he had a previous confrontation with another editor over the idea of "succinct" captions. Over the last 48hr, one of the other supporters of the idea had boldly inserted a section that matched with Jorgen's view, which was removed by a different editor, but he made two caption changes citing this now-absent section. While he's not 3RR within 24hrs, the changes were clearly pointy and I warned him about ANI action should he continue while the RFC was open. I will admit I reverted the changes (though others had done so at the start of the discussion) but only because the captions were status quo and the subject of discussion as to demonstrate what the succinct caption looks like on an active page (the akin to keeping non-free images under FFD until their fate is decided). I strongly stand that the the RFC has no consensus yet either direction, certainly not as strong as Jorgen believes it is for the immediate removals. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And just to note: Jorgen restored the revision that was made mid-RFC but without consensus (original bold addition on April 12: ; removal , Jorgen's re-insertion , and then made these two re-reverts citing that addition as de facto: just prior to posting the above ANI but after I left him a warning that his changes were out of the RFC process. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that these guidelines were new and then removed, I was of the impression that they had always been there as a part of the original article, thats why I inserted them and enforced the guidelines while they were being discussed. As for editing while RFC, I think guidelines should be followed, but if these were added while under discussion, I'll wait before editing again. Jørgen88 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I guess this can be closed unless an admin wants to consider a WP:BOOMERANG? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW violating his TBAN again...

soviet union infobox

The baltic states (which are properly noted as not as not being recognised by the Western world) see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Soviet_Union#Acquisition_of_the_Baltic_states (which most users on the talkpage support inclusion in some form) it would be rather odd to not mention them at all since the existed (maybe albeit in a non western recognised way ((except sweden))) so here is the problem: two users keep removing that claming about some fringe source, the baltic states did not reappear from NOTHING so it just fair to include the view several countries recognized such as Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Russia please help me stop this nonsense there is a editwar ongoing there i was unable to notify the users becuase user:Nug has protected his page and User:Incnis Mrsi well see his warning on his talkpage. Also administrator user:Carlossuarez46 recommended this to be resolved here see his talkpage 95.195.222.86 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Writers with limited English skills should use short sentences. This is impossible to understand. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically the issue is that some editors are removing the three Baltic states from the list of successor states to the USSR in the infobox on the Soviet Union page. There are some long-running POV issues in this sphere, with a few editors who refuse to acknowledge the reality that the Baltic states were part of the USSR (their claim is that because some countries didn't recognise Soviet jurisdiction over them, they weren't part of the USSR). Because no-one has ever put their foot down on this issue, it has festered for several years. Number 57 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record, a similarly numbered IP (95.195.192.64) posted a similar request on my talk page, and I pointed him/her here. I have no opinion on the substance, but I think it's being discussed in the right place now. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Page is being blanked and unsourced material is being added by a newly-registered editor. It needs full protection again. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note WP:RFPP, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they are the same SPA as User:216.191.220.178, made just enough edits to get autoconfirmed and are continuing a section blanking party. I will leave them a message, if that doesn't work, stronger methods can be used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's already protected, Wolfie. RNealK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question is already autoconfirmed, he created his account a week after it was protected, so the protection isn't the solution. Since the problem is one editor, protection isn't the solution anyway. First we talk, then we warn, then we mash buttons if all else fails. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Deerlover567 has made a substantial and ongoing set of incoherent edits

This thread was originally located on AN; has been moved here for housekeeping reasons. m.o.p 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I have been using the mop sporadically for a while, though I've been quiet. However, about an hour ago, I discovered some really incoherent edits to a page, Freckle Juice. I went into the history, and found that the edits had been made last December (diff), by an editor named Deerlover567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I found nothing of note had been done since then, reverted the edits, then went to leave a warning on the editor's page. And I found years of complaints of incoherent editing. The complaints were minor, for the most part, and Deerlover567 seems to mostly nibble at the edges - articles unimportant enough that no one notices the edits for months.

I went to look at Deerlover567's contributions, and found...well, a disaster. A massive number of plots that were rewritten, removing information, deleting links, adding extensive amounts of original research and opinion, and often introducing pretty extensive factual issues (I do not believe that the editor is doing that last intentionally - I do believe the editor is rewriting plots from memory and introducing errors because of written language issues).

Sometimes, as in A Charlie Brown Christmas (diff) , the rewrite was caught quickly. In other cases, such as in The Backyardigans (diff), the changes were done months ago and helpful information has been added. There is going to need to be an extensive check of this users entire history; almost all of their edits that are more than a few characters long need to be looked at, and reverted if need be, while checking for valuable info added in the interim.

I am willing to do this very moppy mopping, but I estimate that each page that needs to be edited and corrected is going to take 5-7 minutes to check properly, and the user has done almost 700 edits, most of them of a size indicating they are not minor, since January 2012. I need help in this, there needs to be an admin game plan for tracking which pages have been checked and corrected, and then there is the issue of the editor. I genuinely believe that Deerlover567 is attempting to be a helpful and contributing member of the community, but...there is clearly an issue, and because the editor is certainly interested in wikipedia and attempting to contribute, for years with little interference (even if there should have been), I felt this needed to be treated differently than the usual problem. Comments? --Thespian (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a competence issue (the user may be a younger editor - see here). Looking at the user's history, I cannot find a single instance of them speaking to another editor - they've never posted in the talk, User Talk, or Misplaced Pages Talk namespaces. This is a bit worrying. It leads me to believe they either aren't seeing those messages on their talk page or are choosing to ignore them. In either case, I'd recommend giving a sterner warning on their talk page letting them know that this is causing issues. If they continue without heeding said warning then I'd say a block is justified. m.o.p 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is possible, but since the user has been editing for 4 years now with little change in quality, I am uncertain of that. I had upped the warning level when I posted, from the earlier things I had seen. But there's also going to be the issue that going and changing 500+ of their edits is a massive undertaking. Normally with this I work on 'you find it, you fix it', but I can't do this...it'll be all I do for half a year. And they'll keep editing. --Thespian (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If they keep editing without reply, we can block them. As for undoing the edits; I could try to help, but I doubt I'd be able to do more than a few dozen. m.o.p 07:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a way to divide them so that people who can help (hey, it might be good for insomnia) could pitch in. I was thinking of simply starting a list in my sandbox where people could claim a month ("I will work on January 2012") and then mark when they have completed it, so people could do things in small batches and pick the amount they feel they want to take on. I really don't mind spearheading it and working on it, but this could take most of the next 6 months on my own.

As to blocking....if that gets done, I'm unsure it would matter. If this user does not understand the talk board or social media aspects of Misplaced Pages, I suspect they'll just be confused, then (try to) start a new account because the old one doesn't work anymore.--Thespian (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with m.o.p. The user hasn't edited since April 17. The last two edits were fine. Going backwards from there are incoherent plot changes (sometimes to pre-existing incoherent plots). We should issue a "final" or "only" warning now, but personalized in case they actually choose to respond. The next bad edit after the warning should trigger a block. Not blocking the editor because they may create another account is not the right approach. If the disruption persists, they should be blocked. If they come back, they will simply have to be blocked again for socking. What other choice do we have to prevent the disruption?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

99.129.112.89

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

IP 99.129.112.89 is continually assuming bad faith and accusing me of owning an article because he/she is mad I took down one of his/her edits that violates both Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information #3 over a dispute that started on 2013 Detroit Tigers season but spilled over to my talk page. 07:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC) <---this is not true, this is what the user is actually doing.

Please don't twist this around to be about me. It's about the content, and the fact you did not properly follow the necessary steps to dispute my contribution. You are the one who is accussing me of what you're doing. I didn't accuse you of "owning" an article, I only typed 'you do not own it' (based on this and other edits/reverts you've made as well as comments about it being "dull" and how you almost fell asleep during the game as if that determines if season play information belongs on the article or not). I am not the one who is mad, how can you tell that? It is how you are coming across since I called you out on causing an edit war, reverting constructive info that is on other MLB article, and you being "abusive" in your responses. Thank you for bringing it here, before I could.

FYI: Hello! Any thoughts/help? I'm not trying to "win". I don't care if it's there or not, my problem is how this user went about conducting themself and not properly taking steps to resolve a dispute. I saved him/her from violating a three-rule revert as well. Very frustrating trying to defend myself. Please see: () 1. It is well written about the season games. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It is broad in its coverage. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy (fair representation without bias). 5. It is stable. Thanks! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate any rules. You think it's about me and what I think. It isn't; your edits fail two rules of notability and therefore don't belong. End of story. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My issue isn't so much about the content, and you seeming to want to monopolize the article. If that is the impression I gave you, I apologize. It has just been the experiences I've had in the past. My problem is that you did not follow proper steps and continued to revert what is included on MANY MLB articles already. That must mean they also need to be removed? What ever the case, this is not worth me fighting. You did not get a consensus, you are "nasty" in your responses, and you nearly violated the three-rule revert I prevented you from doing since I'm not trying to get my way. It is simply how you improperly handled the dispute and attacked me (ie. "childish insult"). You are not someone I want to argue with, and I am taking the high road as a classy person and letting you have your way. I know what I know and was merely trying to expand and help with the article via an ESPN source about notable facts regarding players. You in fact did not give good faith or the benefit of the doubt. I compromised and even shortened my contribution. That wasn't good enough for you. If others read the comments on the talk pages, I hope they will see my point. If not, no sweat. You still did not go about this correctly, and that's what my concern is. Rules are in place for reasons, whether my edits belong on the season article or not. Bye! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No you were being nasty. You assumed bad faith multiple times. Sorry if you don't like my attitude but that's not illegal on here. Posting random un-notable crap like "Butler got 3 hits" and "Verlander got a chapped finger" is though. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Attention to others: User keeps blaming me for what he/she is doing. I wasn't the nasty one. The "Tom Cat" user has also changed this topic from my IP address which is not what the issue is about, from the 2013 Detroit Tigers season. He/she is also incorrect in claiming I assumed bad faith. He/she clearly is conducting bad faith though, after the fact. The above "quotes" are not what my contribution were about. In fact, I explained that ESPN covered the injury online and on TV in great detail. I sourced it as I have, and others have, on MLB season articles. I was simply wondering why this person reverted it and didn't discuss why first. He/she also removed our conversations off his/her page and therefore, please see this: In addition, I've contacted three other users who update MLB season articles as I do (without conflict), and got one reply here: User_talk:RedSoxFan274#2013_Detroit_Tigers. Unfortunately, "Tom Cat" has gotten no consensus. Only after I said I'd get assistance, did he/she post here blaming me as a user (via IP address) instead of making this topic about the 2013 Detroit Tigers article. Words this user used were "dull" and "fell asleep during the game". This was supposed to convince me that since he/she didn't like my input or the game, that it wasn't worth putting in an article that is not overloaded with Regular Season statistics already (and an article that should give details about happenings within the season and team). He/she also blamed me of listing items. And of bad faith. This is not based on anything. I have noticed that it seemed to me the person was monopolizing the article, based on past reverts. I was trying to save this person from him/herself before committing a three-revert violation. Lastly, the user's attitude is one thing, but the fact this person used words like "childish" and "English must not be your first language" is belittling, attacking and inappropriate for disputing content. This person is not following proper steps to resolve a disagreement and that is why I'm responding. If my effort was not appreciated, I can live with that (although the person was very negative which sends a bad messages to users wanting to help improve Misplaced Pages). But it means other MLB articles are wrong too then. IF you read the messages I left on his/her talk page and the 2013 Detroit Tigers Season article, you'll see I was just trying to do this the right way and find out why he/she didn't want it on there. Tom Cat's reasons were personal at first, then he/she made it about Misplaced Pages rules that are not clear on MLB season articles. At any rate, I appreciate your neutral input in advance... Thank you! :) P.S. I will avoid this user from now on, it is just not worth doing this when I've done nothing wrong. Right/wrong/indifferent. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict... now the user posted "disregard" but if that's the case I am replacing my content, and if he/she removes it again, it will be three reverts. Just wanting that to be clear. I have others I've contacted and I think it's only fair to discuss this until finished. I just didn't want communication with "Tom Cat" anymore, as it's pointless. I am here for the input and help of others to get a consensus. Sincerely, 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The childish bickering aside, TomCat4680 is actually correct in that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of news updates. Unless something significantly notable happened in the game that you added material about then per WP:NOTNEWS it should be removed. Also, the fact that similar stuff is on other articles is not, and will never be, accepted as a reason for material to be included. If other similar material exists in other articles, then steps should be taken to examine their encyclopedic value. To the IP, please do not add your material again as both of you may then be blocked for edit warring. If other opinion is sought, seek dispute resolution, a third opinion or the baseball wikiproject. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as myself, it's not childish bickering, it is a discussion and should be treated as such. I am not concerened if it's included, it's that the person violated policy/rules. But let it slide I guess, that must be why it continues to happen on Misplaced Pages. The input is notable... Again, its about players being recalled, injuries, player debuts and a record set. It is not wrong to be there. There are many articles giving way too many details about celebrities, movie plots, song details and episodes, more than I gave, and nothing happens. I can tell you have not really gone through the actual contributions I included, or am I wrong? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it. I gave another input from a user who does the same thing above already. And Tom Cat is wrong. I also know for a fact that the user is not correct about how they handled a dispute, but who cares. You can close this as I do not care to return about something so petty. I just know to stay away from Tom Cat, since I did everything right and he/she did not. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The rules say if something is un-notable, take it down; consensus isn't needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether another article has similar sorts of material is not an argument for/against keeping material in an article. Since it's a disagreement between two editors a consensus cannot be formed, hence my referral to the other three parts of wiki for outside opinion. As a matter of fact, I've read through the various diffs and my conclusion was that it didn't merit inclusion, others my opine differently. Ironically, such an accusation is an assumption of bad faith. (As an aside, the celebrity stuff is pretty much rubbish in my opinion and really shouldn't be in an encyclopedia but we are where we are). I re-iterate, this is a content dispute, seek an outside opinion.

User Pandabiggs

Because fits nonsenses on Nutri Ventures. Puts channels, which broadcasts fakely. --31.63.26.189 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another garden-variety TV show hoaxer; on The Flintstones is linking to a userspace article for the never-launched Seth McFarlane venture, for instance (note that I believe TBrandley, who has that article in their userspace, is in no way connected to Pandabiggs at all), and has the usual type of poor language edits, and adding unsourced and unneeded parental guideline ratings to articles. Might be worth a lookover. I really highly doubt Nutri Ventures – The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms, a Portuguese (?!) venture based on Michelle Obama's health initiatives exists in any form, and that Pandabiggs is WP:NOTHERE, and the Dinofroz (TV series) is just beyond terrible (it exists, but the writing is spork-poke worthy). There are plenty of edits that are reversion candidates here. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 31.63. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Probation Modification - Men's rights movement

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

Greetings ANI - I've been a patrolling admin on this article and unfortunately it is subject to a lot of edit warring. See recent history. I've also several times warned folks not to cross into edit warring for the reverting and blocked others. The article probation log is Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation. I am requesting a strengthening of the probation to a WP:1RR on the article for six months until Sept 20, 2013.--v/r - TP 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a notification here since there are no specific users I am talking about.--v/r - TP 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean October, don't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, but suggest that IP edits should be excluded, as is the case of the Israel/Palestine and Troubles IRR restrictions. As we know from past experience, external websites are sometimes used to recruit editors to this topic, and I can see a IRR being easily gamed otherwise.--Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. 1RR excluding IP edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. m.o.p 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that original probation 18 months ago and frankly I'd support an indefinite 1RR in line with all the other probations listed by Slp1. This is a long running (pre-2007) issue and it hasn't been solved within 6 years. I don't see it going away in 6 months time. That said I support this measure as reasonable. Also could more uninvolved admins give Tom a hand - this is a controversial area its not really fair to leave it up to 1 or 2 uninvolved sysops, more eyes are needed--Cailil 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of indefinite semi-protection to keep IPs at bay, and 1RR for registered users for six months and even longer. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Although talking in a responsible, familiar and objective tone, or referring to Admins by their 1st name, it should be pointed out that Cailil and Binkersnet have also been heavily involved in these disputes. I hope this decision is made on the merits of the case at hand, and not other concerns or connections. CSDarrow (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How does a "decision... made on the merits of the case at hand" differ in any way from what Cailil has suggested, or from what I have suggested? Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my first name is not Tom. They've just connected the dots that my name refers to Tom Paris.--v/r - TP 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree Several of the commenters above (see the Talk page) have engaged in what can only be described as editing this article from a very strong anti-MRM, feminist perspective. Basically, the article reads as the "MRM from a feminist perspective" -- this has been brought up several times independently by several editors. Not exactly NPOV.

These restrictions will not help -- I fear these editors will just continue to game the system. The problem is that Misplaced Pages does not have sufficiently effective policies in place to deal with situations such as this. The best that one could wish for is an Administrator to oversee the editing with a sharp eye for accuracy, balance and fairness. Memills (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The article reads like "the MRM from a feminist perspective" because the sources are about the MRM from a feminist perspective. All of the sources are about the MRM from a feminist perspective because that's how the MRM frames itself. Your complaints aren't about Misplaced Pages; they're about the MRM. The editors above aren't gaming the system...the system just doesn't work the way you wish it did. If you want a Misplaced Pages article about your movement that isn't written from the perspective of another movement, don't have a movement that exists only as a reaction to another movement. 216.185.13.253 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Long-standing battleground. I support 1RR for six months, and I feel semiprotection should be instituted as soon as TParis' recent full protection expires (which is tomorrow). Bishonen | talk 14:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

• Support indefinite semi-protection and an additional 1RR for six months. I hope that more uninvolved admins can keep an eye on the article. It would help if more admins chimed in to determine if comments like and and persistent WP:OR (one example) violate the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Binksternet, with indef semi-protection, as this article has suffered from off site campaigns several times now; with Slp1's IP exemption as a second choice. While the original probation was for the main article only, Sonicyouth makes a good point. Should we expand to include the topic on related articles? If we semi the main article, the problems may leak over onto other articles more. And Sonicyouth, your point about needing more admins is also well taken. I apologize that circumstances have not allowed me to be as helpful as I'd like lately. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree: I think this page will soon be arriving at a steady state as per WP:FIVE Pillars. There will be a number of well argued cases taken to WP:RSN in the next few days. These will address the core issues of the dispute and bring the bickering to end one way or an another. I hate to see the page cast in stone as is for 6 months; this may be to the liking of some but not to others.

I think it is important to bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of Administrative action is not to stop argument on a talk page, but to foster the production of quality Misplaced Pages pages. Sometimes we forget that the pages themselves are more important than the trivial dramas of our editing world. CSDarrow (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per discussion here, I've semi-protected the article for 6 months. If any admin feels strongly that the duration should be longer (or shorter), s/he should feel free to change it; I won't be mad. MastCell  21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Could we get a closure on this?--v/r - TP 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent personal attacks and incivility

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

I am sick and tired of the snide remarks and personal attacks. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth is a bit confused here. I removed South19's comment in which he called a man who committed suicide by self-immolation a domestic terrorist, under the provisions of WP:BDP. I did not intentionally remove sonicyouth's comment when merging the three sections, nor did I realise that I had done so until it was brought to my attention. If you review my edit summary, "Merging three identical discussions into one heading; Hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes", clearly it was in good faith. I will strikeout the uncivil portions of my comments. Rgambord (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Due to the rapid commenting, I confused sonicyouth and south19 at times but corrected my comments to address the proper editors. If sonicyouth read it before my correction, that might have contributed to confusion. User_talk:Sonicyouth86#SorryRgambord (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dense" and "confused". "People like you disgust me" and "you should be ashamed of yourself". A neat collection of personal attacks. Just for reference: A long-time editor was topic banned for a month because he made a joke about red-linked users . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. I have a constitutionally protected right to voice my opinion that South19 should be ashamed of his comments. He called the man a terrorist. Are you missing that part? The part where he publicly called another human being, a man who committed suicide by dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself on fire as a last resort to being stripped of everything he cared about, a terrorist? I think you must have missed that part. There's no room for good faith assumptions there. That was a vile and reprehensible, but I am the bad guy because I "censored" his divisive soapboxing and voiced a personal issue with his behavior on his talk page. I also posted an apology on your talk page which you quickly deleted. Just go ahead and add me to the ever-growing list of editors leaving this failed experiment because I value my time more than to constantly engage in petty squabbles about things like adding the word perceived into sentences where it is already implied and doesn't really belong, and removing the classification of human rights movement, because golly, men's rights just isn't logically a subset of human rights, didn't you get the memo? Misplaced Pages is the only place I've been where people could fill books on whether to add or remove a SINGLE WORD in an article.Rgambord (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a constitutionally protected right against Government censorship of your opinion. At this time your behavior is disruptive and I am about to topic ban you for a month.--v/r - TP 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SW postcode area

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

Northstar456 (talk · contribs) is continuing to change SW20 to "Wimbledon" despite sources stating it. Checking his talk page shows that he has previously been warned for it. Please take whatever action is necessary.--Launchballer 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Next time, try to notify them of the discussion, please. m.o.p 22:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat on Jeremy Scott

IP-user 75.20.130.79, who has repeatedly removed parts of the article on Jeremy Scott, has now made a legal threat, or at least what I interpret as a legal threat, aimed at anyone who publishes the material the IP-user dislikes. Thomas.W (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although the threat is not against Misplaced Pages or another editor, the intent was clear: to chill the conversation, and to prevent editors from re-adding source, negative material. I have blocked for 30 days as it's an IP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 harassment continues

Flying visit this, as I'm off duty for the weekend; I'd appreciate it if someone could look into it. It's been brought to my attention that an anonymous user, operating dynamic IPs, has been systematically proposing for deletion articles created by User:Hijiri88 (who as you may recall was hounded off Misplaced Pages through real-life intervention a couple of months ago by User:JoshuSasori). Given that bit of history, this latest slew of nominations strikes me as suspect to say the least. Some examples: , , (admins only, that one's been deleted), (content blanking). Some of these are justifiable (I'd probably have accepted the CSD tag on Utsunomiya Yoritsuna myself, given what was there), but the pattern is pretty unmistakable. In light of this, I'd like to propose semi-protection of Hijiri88's remaining created articles - I know that pre-emptive protection isn't exactly smiled upon, but to me it seems like the most expedient solution. Any other suggestions gratefully received.

I've notified Hijiri88 by email, I see no need to notify JoshuSasori as they are currently under a fairly hefty site ban, but if someone feels I should have done so, you'll hear no objection if you do it for me. Particularly since I'm not likely to be around again until Monday... Yunshui 雲‍水 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd already defended one of them at an AfD, which was a very frivolous nomination at best - if someone with absolutely no expertise in this area, like me, can find what are foreign language sources on something, and that look useful, it's a very poor nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Looking around after seeing this, I came across this edit, which I found rather concerning, as both seems to be related to the Hikiri88 harassment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hey, let's not be coy here. I closed that AfD speedily. Luke, you're wasting your time even searching for sources: bad-faith nominations like that should be closed immediately, and I urge you to report them here if you find more of them. Yunshui, I'm not against such semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Writers categories at CFD - multiple potential violations

Can some non-involved admins keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists, plus the CFD pages on subsequent days and the categories involved in the various discussions.

What we have here is:

• Controversy about the existance and/or method of population of Category:American women novelists, with the corresponding effect on the contents of Category:American novelists.
• Media attention and off-Wiki notification of the state of affairs.
• An initial CFD discussion that on my screen is already 36 screens long after just two days.
• Other categories being created and often rapidly nominated for deletion and/or merger. So far I've spotted Category:American male writers, Category:British men novelists & Category:American men novelists.
• Edit warring to add or remove articles from all the categories involved.
• Accusations of bad faith and sock puppetry. There's already been one investigation.

...and adding to the complications are not only the media interest but a lot of confusion about how category hierachies work and are understood to work, plus a number of contributors appear to have been dormant for years.

All this is causing some problems and possible violations. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass move of Royal coronations to Coronations

User Surtsicna (talk · contribs) moved page:

• Royal coronations in Norway to Coronations in Norway (Summary: They are obviously royal.)
• Royal coronations in Poland to Coronations in Poland (Summary: Of course they were royal.)
• Coronation of the Hungarian monarch to Coronations in Hungary (Summary: Queens were also crowned.)
• Coronation of the Russian monarch to Coronations in Russia (Summary: Consorts were also crowned.)

Meanwhile, Royal coronations is a well established encyclopaedic term used throughout Europe including in England. There's nothing obvious about Coronations (as such) being Royal, because they can albo be Imperial, or Papal... etc. Surtsicna has not used any of the usual channels to obtain wp:consensus for the above series of controversial page-moves. See also: coronation sentence examples. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a mass move? This is an incident worth reporting to the noticeboard? Ridiculous. I was bold and moved articles I had worked on with Ecjmartin several years ago. There is nothing incidental about that. Coronations in Poland obviously could not be papal and all were royal. "Royal coronations in Poland" implies that there non-royal ones as well. "Royal coronations" cannot possibly be as "well established" as plain coronations - which is obviously why the article about coronations is titled simply Coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

However they are controversial moves against WP:CONSENSUS that all articles of this sort on European topics be titled "Royal coronations in Foo". I'd suggest you self-revert, then nominate them for discussion using the Requested Moves process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There was never any such consensus. Most articles followed the format "Coronation of the Fooan monarch", which was also a bit inaccurate. Thank you for reminding me to note that I did not break any consensus or consistency. This whole thing is obviously absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bushranger is correct. So, instead of lashing out at both of us, please read what Misplaced Pages:Consensus policy actually stands for, Surtsicna. And no, you did not "break any consensus", because you never asked for it. Please self-revert and use the Requested Moves process as suggested. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lashing out at both of us"? Stop slandering and insulting me. I did not have to ask for anyone's permission. Please read what WP:Be bold stands for. I also explained my actions; your explanation here is at best illogical. Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please also read WP:BRD and WP:RM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:ChakaKong

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

ChakaKong made a faulty and erroneous edit in the MGM Music page by reverting a corrected edit which, if you look at the MGM Music history page, was started by User Talk:Superastig. User talk:ChakaKong took great offense in my pointing out his erroneous edit which I called out both on the Talk:MGM Music page and his talk page. I offered to let it slide if he apologized. Not only did he NOT apologize, but he accused me of harrassment and included a disclaimer telling editors NOT to talk about his faulty edits on his talk page. You can also read his comments on my talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I saw an edit to an unfamiliar article from an anonymous IP which clearly appeared to be an addition of completely unsourced information. So I reverted it as the guidelines dictate. We all know that there was no impropriety in what I did. He can call it a "faulty and erroneous" edit in an attempt to convince someone that there was some kind of bad intent, but it should be clear that there was not. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it the same as editor Steelbeard1 does. He has been proliferating his harassment of me ever since. He has even quite conspicuously stated his intentions commit Wikihounding by watching every edit I make in the future. When I informed him that he was harassing me and and was thus in violations of certain guidelines, he immediately retaliated by opening this incident report. Why does he think he can demand an apology from me over a good faith edit that clearly was an attempt to follow the guidelines as closely as possible? I'm trying very hard to keep my cool but this editor's behaviour is becoming troublesome to me. I asked him to drop it and move on but he obviously refused. By all means, read my comments on his talk page as he requested. ChakaKong 22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear - Steelbeard1 your here because you want an apology? And ChakaKong is unset that your planing to follow his ever edit. Does this sound like something the community needs to get involved in - or is it simply time for all involved to grow up and start acting like adults? What would you like the community to do - force an apology ? and/or to tell editors treats are not welcome?Moxy (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I agree this is not something the community needs to get involved in. I've been encouraging Steelbeard1 to let it go but he just won't. ChakaKong 22:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit ChakaKong made created a glaring error in the MGM Music article at and ChakaKong's edit states incorrectly that Warner Music Group owns the rights to the MGM Records soundtracks catalogue. The edit he changed had correctly stated that Turner Entertainment owns the soundtracks as I backed up with this linked citation at . Turner Entertainment is owned by Time Warner which FORMERLY OWNED Warner Music. Warner Music's Rhino Entertainment unit had the license to issue the soundtracks in question. I watch all editors who clearly make false edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear - your assuming that his ONE edit that he never reverted or disputed was done in bad faith. Secondly your still telling us you plan to follow him all over. You sure its his behavior we should be looking at here?Moxy (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're back from the CBS Records dispute that User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started. I've been following RAN as well and posted in the discussions regarding RAN's behavior. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I smell an incoming seafood boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've trouted RAN regarding his behavior, but that's besides the point. We are talking about calling out faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The trout I'm referring to would be aimed in your direction, from what I'm seeing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Spam attack on Evolutionary psychology

• Evolutionary psychology (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Evolutionary Psychology of Culture (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture
• Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jhicks0207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

There is something very odd going on here with a huge amount of (spammed?) content beong added to this article by two brand new users. One of these new users has created the second drivel article. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci Just trying to update the old page with new information and formatting. The old article was insufficient. While the new one can definitely be further organized, I was just trying to make a new page with further information on evolutionary psychology and culture. I cannot speak for Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Is this some undergraduate project gone badly wrong? That's what appears to be happening. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire work is verifiable, and I believe it is much better than the alternative lack of information on wikipedia.

• Both new editors are out of control. They are both adding large amounts of gobbledegook content. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• One new page is not large amounts, please add specific problems with the new page. jhicks0207 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All the content you are adding constitutes an WP:ESSAY, like the deleted article with its bizarre capitalization. Misplaced Pages is not a blog. It looks as if Jhicks0207 and Masterofthepages (who presumably created the deleted essay-article Evolution and Culture) are the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The cache on Google tells me that Evolutionary Psychology of Culture is an identical copy of the recently deleted article Evolution and Culture. Jhicks0207/Masterofthepages is abusing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I came into this imbroglio in the middle. I've deleted the article created by Jhicks (per WP:CSD#G4), but it took me a bit to figure out what was going on. Unfortunately, Mathsci, whose heart is in the right place, tagged the article as WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), which, frankly, was a nonsense tagging. I removed the tag, read the talk page comments, which were also pretty silly. I finally traced it back to the article that had just been incubated per a deletion discussion. That article had been created by User:Psyc452-lrockwell, whoever that is. I assume there's a relationship between Jhicks, Masterofthepages, and Psyc452, but it's possible that they're just all fellow students, not a single individual. They do need to stop recreating the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be students, but it's hard to say. If so, they should not be let loose on articles like evolutionary psychology, which is a contentious and problematic article. I watch it, but do not usually edit it. The changes being made at the moment do not conform to normal wikipedia standards. I have requested full protection. As far as school projects go, I have seen students involved in fairly narrowly defined areas, such as certain parts of ecology, trying to add essay-like content in a prominent but WP:UNDUE way to top level articles such as Europe. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody should give advice to Jhicks directly now that he is trying to recreate the content for a third time in the article incubator. Misplaced Pages is not the place for pseudoscientific "essays" of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like another undergraduate project that has got out of control, cf User:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality. It's Psychology 452 at San Francisco State University as far as I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Matsci, it is an educational project which unfortunately seems lacking in guidance. Please see Misplaced Pages:Education_noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology_.2F_Psyc452. I'm dropping a line on User talk:Psyc452-GGeorge--they're one of the students and seem like a nice person. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly this could involve User:Memills, a long term editor of Evolutionary psychology. An account User:Psyc452-mmills created Evolution and culture. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Memills now blocked for a week for shenanigans in another field of interest. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I've been working on the article in the incubator, where hopefully I can get extensive help from the wikipedia community in order to make it presentable for wikipedia. I see your pointsMathsci, and I agree with Bbb23 that the problem was in how you tagged the content because I certainly see the flaws in the article itself. jhicks0207 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhicks0207 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, this work is part of a greater project to increase available information about evolutionary psychology which myself, User:Psyc452-lrockwell, and jhicks0207 are all involved in. We by no means wished to abuse wikipedia by adding our Evolution and culture page, and are working to have it meet wikipedia's standards. Thank you Mathsci for realizing our mistake, we sincerely appreciate your feedback and are only trying to contribute to wikipedia's greater mission to empower and engage people from around the world, to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As the information on evolutionary psychology currently on the web is limited and inaccurate, including the current wikipedia page, we are trying to help correct and build upon it. We are not spammers or vandals, we are academics well educated and researched on the field. I am currently having all of our group members, as well as extending this to others working on our same project, the online seminar wikipedia provides for new editors. Incase other students are reading this, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Training/For_students Thank you all for your contributions, myself and my team members will work all weekend to bring the page up to wikipedias standards. If there are any further issues please contact me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-cwlodarczyk (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

ip resuming bad habits

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

I first reported this some time ago at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#ip continually adding falsified information. It involves the ip 64.119.212.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the article James King (Royal Navy officer). A registered user Skellands (talk · contribs) and his sock, this ip, edit warred over the introduction of some falsified material in opposition to the reputable cited sources. The behaviour that time led to an indefinite block on Skellands, and a graduated series of blocks on the ip that eventually reached three months. Now the ip is back, inserting the same erroneous information and topping it off this time with a copyvio of this site (ip's addition here). Even if the site he uses passed WP:RS, it in no way supports the ip's apparent contention about King's birthplace, attested to in the reliable cited sources (more on this on the talkpage here). Perhaps an administrator can take a look. Benea (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

IP doesn't edit much except to vandalize. Blocked for six months. m.o.p 22:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Trusthim

Trusthim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trusthim has kept on creating (and re-creating) several inappropriate articles promoting non-notable people (A7, G11). This is a pattern of disruptive editing that I have seen on many occasions before. I left him a warning to stop, and then he blanked all the warnings and speedy deletion notices off his talk page, making it evident that he isn't listening to other users. He also appears to be pushing for a specific cause, a powerful identifier for a single purpose account. Something has to be done to stop him before he can continue more POV-pushing and disruption. Command and Conquer Expert! _{review me...} 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• That they deleted the warnings we are asked to interpret as "they've read them". Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• OK, this person was a likely sock (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KANYABIGEGA Silas) and I'll block them as such. Their articles have been deleted. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe some kind soul can add the account to that SPI and ask CU to see if there are any sleepers (seems doubtful to me, but who knows). Drmies (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's him alright. I filed the SPI since I appear to be his primary foil. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Max Borin

The user is apparently new and is on a spree of creating dozens ridiculous articles such as Spoofing your technical friend and the dab Washington Museum to "disambiguate" 2 museums that are not popularly called "washington museum". The user has been warned on their talk page about creating frivolous stub articles but has continued on their merry way creating more and more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully. Max Borin (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• You have to start by not making up stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  I have cleaned up several articles that duplicate existing articles as well. I recommend this editor must create all new articles through WP:AFC (and be temporarily sanctioned from creating articles in the main space) until they are more familiar with the many policies and guidelines for new content on Misplaced Pages. It seems a bit harsh but several people have tried to talk to them with no apparent change in editing pattern. Mkdw 03:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

after making the statement " I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully" they went on to create this beaut: San Francisco Museum and several others. Every minute delay will result in additional cleanup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have recommended that Max hold off on creating new articles until we can appropriately find a solution that. It is also clear that this editor has a high level of understanding how to use a wiki; redirects, reflists, disambiguation pages, links, bolding titles, and knowing MOS title formats like article name + (topic). Even his first edit is very indicative of an experienced editor. I worry that this editor could be evading a block as this seems strikingly similar to the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson days ago. Some very troubling similarities. Mkdw 04:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fladrif with their finger on the trigger

Someone who knows their history and can remember who's who from a number of feuds needs to have a look at the recent contributions by Fladrif (talk · contribs), who's tagging as db-attack a ton of user pages. I rolled one of them back (I didn't see the attack), but a. I don't have mass rollback enabled and my RSI is playing up and b. this should be handled by someone who knows this stuff better than me. In addition, I have just warned Fladrif on their talk page (no doubt already deleted) for this piece of editing, which someone else might block them for in a heartbeat (I wouldn't object). Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif removed numerous of my user pages with out notice. I'd forgotten I had them actually, they were leftovers from an arbitration, and would have appreciated a notice if there was a concern. I don't appreciate another editor without notice removing content from my user page. Such an action runs close to vandalizing a user page.(olive (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

Well, I don't know what the deal is, but I think that's the last of the noms dealt with. One way or another, if these pages need deletion, they need discussion, not a speedy deletion tag slapped on them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm amazed that "Fladrif" is even able to edit. His violations of core policy astound me, ... but perhaps my thoughts are singular. — Ched :  ?  05:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Full Music episodes, Full Music and talk pages for both

An editor, using various IP addresses and now the user name Hector guardia has been repeatedly creating these articles, under the main titles and on the talk pages repeatedly. (Article is for an unsourced show, supposedly airing in 2027 with an extensive list of Disney Channel "stars"). The editor is currently removing the speedy deletion tags and ignoring talk page requests. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Articles" deleted (again), editor blocked indef as this appears to be the only reason they're here. Hoax future Disney articles may indicate socks of KuhnstylePro (talk · contribs)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That said, Full Music is back. Perhaps some salt? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Salt applied. Needs more pepper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in 2027. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)