Misplaced Pages

• Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. Cdtew (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not trying to tear TTT from WP:FOUR; we are rather trying to make it clear that personal attacks, constant ABF and abuse will not be tolerated! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. No matter who the editor was, if my first attempt to negotiate a solution (note that I was decidedly neutral at the time) was greeted with "How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?" without any attempt to address the meat of my suggestion, then followed it with a month of edit warring, ABF, canvassing, and personal attacks, I'd be pushing to have the rules determined by consensus. Tony can stay involved with FOUR if he wants, as one of the community, and I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't. There is just no room for a self-declared director who attempts to ignore consensus and assumes bad faith on everyone who doesn't agree with him or her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support indef topic ban - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block; honestly since this whole thing started I've been waiting for the racism accusations to appear, having observed Tony's past behavior at ANI, so this is not surprising in the least. It really should be extended to a week as this is the exact same behavior that drew a 48hr block last time and clearly nothing has been learned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Indefinite Block While TTT was out of line with his charges of racism, I can't believe someone tried to delete one of his user pages. That is a provocative act and as long as it didn't have libelous content on it, it's out of line to try to delete it. My question is whether this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. This is a case that is desperately in need of an unbiased third opinion. Use a mediator, this has gotten way too personal. Liz 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Liz: Check the timeline. Tony's racist attacks came before the page was nominated for deletion. First racist attacks at 13:43 my time, second claims of racism at 14:17, then the MFD at 14:48. Tony cannot claim the MFD as setting him off, unless he's a time lord. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, the time line also demonstrates the remarkably poor judgment that you have exercised in starting the MfD, as you made the nomination after giving a 'withdraw or face ANI' ultimatum. Liz is correct, the MfD was always going to be provocative in effect (regardless of your intent) and I am disappointed to see an administrator who failed to anticipate that the nomination was a poor decision. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I have already given a reason why my nomination was immediate, rather than wait a week. I did not intend it as "payback" for anything here or there (though I did understand it could be taken poorly, I expected editors to look at the policy and not "just leave Tony alone"... damn I'm naive). If I found such a page the user space of anyone here I would likely have MFDed it: the policy says keep it short, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support extended block, including indef until they withdraw their remarks and assure us they will not use the term inappropriately again. I would support a topic ban on TTT using the term racism or anything the implies the same thing like racist, racial bias, racial discrimination, racial bigotry etc against other editors or if not that a clear understanding an indef block will result if they use it inappropriately in the future. This previous discussion did not previously understand what racism even means, it sounds like they still don't understand so I don't think they should ever use the term. I would also support a topic ban on TTT from FOUR. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, reserve judgment on other issues, because I do think Tony can use a little breather and step back while still being involved. - Penwhale | 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I take no position on blocking and have worked collaboratively with Tony in the past. I do agree, though, that Tony needs to cease recklessly throwing around charges of racism. He has been doing that without any basis for years. At DYK, he threw such accusations at me and others back in September 2010 and April 2012 at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 80#DYK date request and Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 58#Michigan basketball overload, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions TTT is not more at fault than some of the other editors, but I do agree he should retract his accusations. I think we are at the right point though where everyone will walk away and leave it behind them. Xrt6L (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per AutomaticStrikeout. The MfD is clearly a payback even though Crisco claims it's not. OhanaUnited 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. also, what it has to do with Tony's behavior seems unclear. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, especially topic ban and current short-term block. This has been a long-term problem. I suspect he uses the "racism" charge because he is utterly unable to understand -- or possibly incapable of understanding -- why his egotistical behavior is causing problems and thinks, therefore, it must be racism at its root. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support sanctions (block, topic ban, whatever) - I didn't want to weigh in here, but Tony's response to a request for an apology here suggests he does not understand how false claims of racism can be considered personal attacks and/or libel. Until he realises what he's doing is really not cool (for lack of a better word), I think something needs to be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the current block (duh), perhaps a longer one (though blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and I think he gets the point). I do not support an indefinite block at this point. Tony has contributed a lot of content and that makes up for some things--though not for accusations of racism, but no doubt any future such accusations will be met with an indefinite block, per admin's discretion. I'd like to see some sort of topic ban somewhere. From Four, for starters. Plus a real short leash on canvassing and other lawyerish disruption.

  Tony, I don't understand why you felt you had to resort to that low kind of insult, but it's obviously coming back to bite you. Did you expect otherwise? I'm sure you won't leave Misplaced Pages and I for one don't want you to leave (though Lord Jimbo knows we barely ever got along), but it can't go on like this. At some point you'll have to swallow your pride, maybe. I don't know. I wish you the best, but if for you continued contributions to the project means continued disruption, then your glowing career will come to a speedy end. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like activity has died down here over the last couple of days, partly because of the tangential thread over on WP:AN. Would an uninvolved admin please sum this up and close it? Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded. Could an uninvolved admin please sum up this thread, enforce any consensus-attained outcomes, and close this thread? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thirded - After the posts from both sides on my talk page (Nasty stuff!) I think it's time to pack up and move on. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Request temporary interaction ban or other measure

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

Actually, the fact that I'm posting here at all is a clear sign that I need that wikibreak. Sorry for my own role in this drama, and I'll see y'all in a month. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion on this topic has moved to WP:AN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabricating information and POV-pushing by User:The Discoverer

I need administrator help to deal with User:The Discoverer, who made a number of edits contradicted by neutral sources, in a way that advances the Indian agenda in several articles about places that are claimed by both India and China.

For example, in this edit on Khurnak Fort, he added "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory", purportedly supported by two Indian sources. However, the Indian source he cites says "The Chinese claim line ... included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. ... the Chinese were in occupation of all this territory by the early 1950s.", clearly contradicting his edit.

In the same edit, he added "this traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line" (the Johnson Line is what India claims to be the traditional border), citing this US Navy source. However, the source has this to say about the Johnson Line: "Johnson's work has been severely criticized for gross inaccuracies, with description of his boundary as patently absurd. ... Johnson was reprimanded by the British Government for crossing into Khotan without permission, and resigned from the Survey."

He also created or modified several articles including Lanak Pass, Sirijap, Galwan River, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Chip Chap River, etc., quoting almost exclusively non-neutral Indian sources while repeating the same fabricated information. He also created the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War using the biased word "occupied", and added all the articles into that category, including Khurnak Fort and Lanak Pass that even Indian sources admit were controlled by China before the war.

After noticing his POV edits, I nominated the category for deletion and reminded him on his talk page to follow the NPOV policy, and he agreed. However, pretty soon he added even more one-sided pro-Indian POV to several articles, citing exclusively non-neutral Indian sources.

I then tried again and again to persuade him to follow the NPOV policy, yet he refused to listen. On 2 September he again added Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (diffs: ), even though all sources, including Indian ones that he added himself, say they were controlled by China in the 1950s, clearly before the 1962 war.

User:The Discoverer is no stranger to ANI. Last year he was reported here for copyright violation. I request that this user be topic-banned for repeatedly and persistently violating WP policies. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Following are some comments regarding the points raised:

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory" is supported by the text at and . I know these are not reliable sources, but my statement is not a fabrication. Later, I provided four sources (available in the current revision) that state that the fort was controlled by China since June or July 1958.
• My full sentence was "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British." This is an objective and true statement and I stand by it. I have never, ever made any attempt to justify the Johnson line, as implied by Zanhe.
• I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and in the discussion we had at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28. I have been willing to consider all Zanhe's objections, and have repeatedly offered to rename the category to a more suitable name.
• Zanhe objected to including Indian sources, while my argument was that since the same Indian sources had criticised India, and since their statements have not been disputed by any other source, they have some reliability and neutrality. At the end of our discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_28, I suggested that we discuss our disagreement further at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in order to get other editors' views.
• On the occasion when my edits were reported for copyvio, what had happened was that I had split Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio had originated from the original Misplaced Pages article.

The Discoverer (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: you admit that all four Indian sources you added say the fort has been controlled by China since 1958 (another source says early 1950s), yet you still insist on re-adding the article to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. Your personal bias has obviously impeded your judgment to the extent that you're unable to accept the simple fact that 1958 was before the 1962 war. Your behaviour is a perfect example for WP:COMPETENCE#Bias-based, which says that "a topic ban is generally appropriate" in such cases.
• Regarding the Johnson Line: how can you deny that your sentence "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line" is a justification of the Johnson Line? In territorial disputes, each country usually describes its preferred boundary as the "traditional" one. Your claim that the Johnson Line followed the traditional boundary is clearly an endorsement.
• The main problem with Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (besides non-neutral language) is that not a single neutral source says any of the places was occupied by China after the war. On the contrary, all neutral sources I've read say China withdrew to the prewar border after the war, which is also what the main article Sino-Indian War says. You're completely replying on non-neutral Indian sources and your own fabrication.
• I did not object to the inclusion of all Indian sources. I only insisted that non-neutral sources need proper attribution per WP policy, and that you cannot draw conclusions solely from non-neutral sources. (diffs: )
• As for your previous incident on ANI, the discussions involved allegations of copying content from other articles without attribution, as well as copyright violation. As a result, your original creations were deleted by admins.

-Zanhe (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any admin out there? -Zanhe (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The facts are clear-cut; need some resolution please. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

User:L'Origine du monde

User:L'Origine du monde, fresh off a block, is now trying to blackmail Reaper Eternal, EdJohnston, and JamesBWatson by ordering them to "apologise sincerely for all mistakes" or L'Origine du monde will "pursue further complaints". Obvious blackmail there and obviously not a good idea.

Since the user was unblocked under two hours ago, I am requesting that User:L'Origine du monde be reblocked and indefinitely (as they previously were), as they are obviously not here to edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as well as the unblocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked for evading a block that did not apply to me. Blackmail is not involved. Serious mistakes were made by three administrators, including one check user, and it is important this does not happen again. BEFORE using this board, it is normal to initiate discussions on the talk pages of the editor involved.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 03:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were, in fact, wrongly blocked, there would already be an active discussion here on ANI or over on AN, there isn't. But saying you won't do A if someone does B is blackmail. You saying you won't "pursue further complaints" if the admins don't "apologise sincerely for all mistakes" is the definition of blackmail. Attempting to blackmail an admin goes straight to ANI and bypasses the user talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are opinionated. I suggest you read my talk page. I am afraid I thought that the procedure was first to discuss problems with the relevant editors on their talk pages, and only to raise the issue here should that fail to give satisfaction.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you object to this edit too - ] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely "opinionated", but not in this. Let's wait for the admins as any back-and-forth between us will do no good.

As for the image request, yes, I do object. It could be seen as you only wanting it taken off the blacklist so you can put it back on your userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde, if you continue to be so abrasive towards everyone else involved in this incident, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be honest, after reading your recent comments, I have absolutely no interest in helping you because your comments are so off-putting. I strongly suggest that you take a deep breath and try to calm your tone. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not supposed to add images to that list for that purpose, but for widespread vandalistic use. It took the painting away from a number of other pages without discussion. I see no reason why a consensus could not be reached that I am entitled to use that image. It has been used as a user page image for 4 years without any complaints.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bad image list is meant for images that could be seen as inappropriate for use outside of very controlled environments. For example, many images of genitalia are on the list because those images should not be on pages that are not assumed to be about that subject. Think of if you clicked on World or Earth and saw a picture of a tangentially related genitalia. ~Charmlet 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the admin saw you were doing something that you weren't supposed to. Since your userpage was deleted, I can't tell for myself. Also, I highly doubt it was used as an image on your userpage since you have only been an editor here since August of 2013. Also, you might want to read WP:NPA, because your continuous snide remarks and personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, isn't the reason for the perceived bad block immaterial to this ANI? Is the purpose more to discuss L'origine's behavior post-block? --McDoobAU93 04:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The deleted userpage contained nothing but the image being discussed with regards to the bad image list. Monty₈₄₅ 04:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine, in this edit are you stating that you do indeed have sockpuppets? Zad68 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If not the registered editor I conflated him with, he might be talking about this, this and this IP account that I was discussing with Elockid; those are accounts that L'Origine du monde‎ used. AndyTheGrump might have had more experience with L'Origine du monde‎ than any other editor while L'Origine du monde‎ was editing as IPs. L'Origine du monde‎ has not been editing Misplaced Pages only since August 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of the admins here misused any of their powers and were following policy. It's quite evident that the edits of the IP were L'Origine du monde's. Since none of the admins here had CheckUser uses at the time of the blocking evidence, it's very believable that the L'Origine du monde appeared to be a returning blocked/banned user. Furthermore, to complicate things, the person who was editing behind the IP can't be disclosed due to WMF's privacy policy. It would appear then that L'Origine du monde is socking. Honestly, if I didn't have CU access, I probably would have also thought that L'Origine du monde was a returning blocked/banned user. This was all just an honest mistake. I can understand L'Origine du monde's frustration. However, I don't believe that this is the right venue. Elockid 04:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the talk page messages I don't think they are actionable. Asking for an apology, which would imply an admission of error, as way of resolving a dispute is reasonable, and mentioning that you will pursue it further if not resolved is not blackmail. The messages were worded strongly, and seem unlikely to have the desired effect, but they aren't blackmail. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If Elockid thinks this isn't the right venue and Monty845 thinks there isn't any blackmail (even though I disagree), I will accept their opinions and we can call this resolved, unless anyone else feels different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid thank you for your contribution. However I disagree about abuse of power. Reaper Eternal blocked me because I asked you a question on your talk page and he didn't like my choice of painting- but didn't want to discuss it. After you explained what I was asking about (for some reason he never asked you, and I didn't realise I could email you till two days ago), he wrote on his talk page

Elockid has clarified that the block on the IP was not targeted at him, but, rather, at another user who apparently was spoofing Ldm's IP. Since he's convinced I have a "conflict of interest" regarding his block (from what I don't know), I'm not going to take any action. And honestly, now that the issue of block evasion has been cleared up, I'm not going to complain if he creates another account with an acceptable username and userpage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He obviously still doesn't understand how IPs work (no spoofing was involved), refused to lift his block, and doesn't understand

"Conflicts of Interest Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."

He also failed to explain what he was doing, or why. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Reaper blocked you for asking a question. As I stated previously, it would seem that you were evading your block and that was the main reason why Reaper blocked you. He wasn't a CU when he made the block so there wasn't any misuse of tools there. He probably was simply acting on WP:DUCK. Might not be the most practical way, but it's the best thing we have right now considering how Misplaced Pages works. Elockid 04:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer. What I meant when saying not the best venue was that it probably would have been better to ask for an apology privately or at a more friendly tone. This way we can avoid all the drama and perhaps L'Origine du monde could have gotten what he asked for. I'll have to stop commenting here for now as it's getting late for me. Elockid 04:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Elockid: My mistake, I misunderstood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If this discussion could focus on removing File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list I would be happy. This file depicting the famous 1866 oil painting l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet, on public display in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris was added to the list by User:Reaper Eternal. This removed it from a number of pages in the userspace where it had happily been for many years with no complaints. He made this addition because he objected to me displaying the image on my user page, which he had previously deleted. Given that there had been no widespread problem with this image of an iconic painting, I think he was wrong to add it to the list without discussion. MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Remove_File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg_from_the_Bad_image_list ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 05:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently L'Origine is now trying to blackmail me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude/dudette, L'Origine, going around and demanding apologies is something that children and governments do. It's a waste of time, and never gets the desired result anyway, since you can never even be sure of the sincerity of the apology. Just go about your business, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If people make mistakes with their administrative, or checkuser special powers, and don't understand why, wikipedia has a problem. Apologies are a simple part of civility, and the natural response to making mistakes, particularily when they have caused pain, as this 3 week ban has. Neutral homer started this discussion - and was offensive to me on a talk page he was licking - why should he interfere in my communication, be rude, and not apologise?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 07:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This was my request to neutral homer -

Hi! I strongly object to your disruptive ignorant page stalking, and misleading comments. While you are entitled to your opinions, I find your unfounded accusations of blackmail, and negative remarks about my intelligence offensive. If you apologise on my talk page I will not complain further.

@L'Origine: I said on the aforementioned talk page: "Blackmailing an admin, not a smart move, one that will get you nowhere but another block." Now, I'm not sure what in there you found "offensive", but it doesn't warrant an apology.

While we are on the subject of apologies, when someone demands one while threatening "further complaints", one isn't going to get the response they seek. I'm not going to apologize just because you think you are owed one. If you think you were wronged, I can't help ya. Nothing I said warrants an apology and you won't be getting one. Like real life, here at Misplaced Pages, you aren't owed anything.

Now, take Qwyrxian's advice and go about your business. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have User:JamesBWatson on my watchlist and have for awhile. Also for the record, I will not apologize to avoid a block as I have nothing to apologize for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any chance of a not here block? The user name "L'Origine du monde" refers to File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg which is a magnificent piece of art, but coupled with the user's contribs indicates that Flyer22 is going to need help soon, and given the user's outbursts it would be kinder to give a firm response now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about neutralhomer rudely interfering in my talk, and repeatedly accusing me of blackmail. This is not appropriate behaviour. I also strongly object to him starting this ani, as an unaffected editor, without even giving an explanation on my home page. I feel that his actions constitute bullying. The fact that he is unwilling to admit that his accusations were wrong, and repeats them should be recognised. He started this ANI, on a matter which has otherwise nothing to do with him - does he not deserve censure. With regard to apologies- shit may happen, but when you clearly (look at my talk page) explain to people what has gone wrong, and they persistently fail to understand simple concepts it is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. Any editor can bring something here even if not directly involved with the dispute...WP:TROUT for no discussion but no big deal...I'd suggest that you drop both sticks and walk away you can continue to complain but right now if you notice it is starting to {{WP:BOOMERANG]] on you.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Still rather hurt by the ban :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: block, not ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NH should have attempted to discuss with editor before opening the ANI thread -- ya know, like it says at the top of the page? NE Ent 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde got screwed over by the socking / check user machinery -- which is a reflection of the limitations of technology, not malfeasance on the part of administrators. While there's nothing that can be done about the past, tolerance of her understandable frustration is appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but that does not excuse them from dropping the stick and stopping harassing everyone who was involved, from the blocker, to those who declined the unblock, to those who removed talkpage access, to those who reported their extremely bizarre behaviour. Their continued actions show that a block of SOME type was actually a requirement, as opposed to trying to convince the community that they're a possibly fantastic editor. Accusing people of not knowing what they're allowed to do is ridiculous, unfounded, and plain ol' wrong (note: I'm only here because at least 4 of the people they're harassing are on my watchlist) ES&L 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update After almost a day away, they're back - and still refusing to drop the damned stick. ES&L 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have disengaged from this thread as my last post (besides this one) on this was at 07:17 UTC on September 9th. I've been working on other articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2 still hounding me

I started a thread here last week about User:Enkyo2 posting completely incomprehensible talk-page comments and generally being disruptive. User:Qwyrxian pointed out how this problem had been going on for years, and if it didn't show signs of improving Enkyo2 would probably get indefinitely blocked. User:Kim Dent-Brown then asked Enkyo2 to explain himself. Enkyo2 disappeared from Misplaced Pages for 5 days, before re-emerging two hours after the thread got archived, and opposing an RM I had made. Enkyo2's other edits since returning have all been not-so-subtle jabs at my activity during his 5-day absence: I posted a discussion of Louis Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia on WP:RSN, and Enkyo2's last six edits have all been to the Louis Frédéric article or to create a new article on the Japan Encyclopedia. His edits to the These edits are obviously a weak attempt to undermine the RSN thread, as they strongly emphasize Harvard University Press, six editions in French and English, Donald Richie says great things about it ... Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, we know his comment on Talk:Empress Gemmei#Requested move was meant to undermine me because his argument was just as incoherent as ever, and all but one of his sources say the opposite of what he claims. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You, again? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the Enkyo2 problem (which as I said hasn't been resolved yet because he deliberately sabotaged the thread by waiting for it to get archived) I think I've opened one ANI thread in the last three weeks. What exactly do you mean by that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion, just archived before Enkyo restarted editing, is here. I had asked Enkyo to respond but no response was forthcoming. To be honest I'm also finding Hijiri's continual complaints a little shrill but I can understand his/her frustration when faced with an almost completely opaque and incomprehensible style of communication from Enkyo. I'd love the two of them to get on as they seem like topic experts but neither seems to be able to co-operate with the other. Kim Dent-Brown 15:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Enkyo2 was previously blocked for one year by Arbcom in 2011 under a different account name in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, and he has been the subject of an RFC/U. He was previously topic banned in 2009 in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty. A sample of his style of reasoning can be seen in this version of his talk page. In my opinion, it's reasonable for him to explain himself here and to take measures to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I have a bit of background in Japanese history I reviewed Enkyo's edits. Hijiri likes to add information from modern Japanese encyclopedias, and Enkyo likes to add information from older primary sources or poorly edited Western encyclopedias. This information is mostly NPOV and not necessarily wrong. Both editors are using the sources to justify straightforward information and pretty ordinary views. I did not find any articles being especially worsened by Enkyo's behavior. The main problem is that Enkyo has very poor communication. When he wants to make a brief point he seems to be able to do so (often using the passive tense), but when he has to reply to a sustained argument he descends into incomprehensibility. He attempts to avoid pertinent discussions by not responding, as he has done here, or by changing his username, as he did multiple times on Simple English Misplaced Pages. He also seems to think that he can make up for his "subjective" communication failures by adding "objective" information to related Misplaced Pages articles, as is the case here, but that's not especially bad if he really does have relevant information to add. As ARBCOM warned before, Enkyo has to be humble and recognize that he cannot edit if he isn't able to justify himself coherently. I attempted to piece together his view at WP:RSN but the discussion is already confused by the highly personal nature of his argument with Hijiri. Shii (tock) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Enkyo2: - I'm trying to WP:AGF here but the fact you stopped editing during the previous ANI discussion, and then re-appeared as soon as it was archived, is concerning. Please can you explain your absence? GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Could this be taken as a "request for clarification and amendment" to the most recent Arbcom case? That is, since this is essentially the same problem as Enkyo2 was admonished for before, could we process it through Arbcom expeditiously (i.e., without a whole new case) on the grounds that the temporary (1 year) ban did not alleviate the problem? And if anyone not convinced that there is a problem here, please take a look at User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-Fukue, found by Kim Dent-Brown, which I have to presume is how he presumes to answer the current concern. Note also that after Kim Dent-Brown advised him not to attempt to use such a format and length of response, his next step was to increase the length by about 50%. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom case from 2011 included this advice to Tenmei:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Misplaced Pages editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

I think the wished-for change in Tenmei/Enkyo's style has manifestly not occurred. Whether the disruption it causes is sufficient for a block, a topic ban, a return to the ArbCom case is harder to judge. I'd really appreciate a few more opinions in here. We either have a knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded by trivial complaints, or a slyly disruptive editor who masks the damage he causes in a swirl of hard-to-understand verbiage. If there's a third explanation I don't see it. Either way we need to do something; inaction in either case would be inexcusable. More voices, please.... Kim Dent-Brown 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kim Dent-Brown: Thank you for the way this diff was structured. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it is the latter. As for the solution, I am inclined to an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef, unless we hear something to convince us that the same pattern won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri's tendency to make arguments personal is not the problem here, and it's kind of ironic that Enkyo's planned response has an image of the WP:DR pyramid without understanding that. I wonder if Enkyo speaks Japanese, in which case he might understand the following: 以魚駆蠅するな。子曰く、改めざるときは、吾之を如何ともする末きのみ。 Shii (tock) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is the pattern of Hijiri's attack strategy mirrored elsewhere? Yes.

• See Canada-based IP user posting problematically in hundreds of RMs in which Hijiri "gins up" an ANI complaint as a direct response to a diff posted at Talk:Empress Gemmei.
• See above where Hijiri "gins up" an ANI complaint because I posted a diff at Talk:Empress Gemmei.

ARGUMENT: In the RSN thread, my words are refutation and counterargument backed up with reasoning and supporting evidence in articles about Japan Encyclopedia and Louis-Frédéric Nussbaum and the Harvard University Press. Is this not exactly what I should have done? In contrast, Hijiri attacks me here and in this ANI thread.

EdJohnston makes a good point when he argues that it's reasonable to take measures to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue. However, he and others seem to overlook what Rjanag correctly identified as the underlying pattern. The four ANI threads in quick succession present a string of highly personal complaints. This was a pattern pushed by Hijiri, and my role was the target. --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo, if you think you are being attacked, don't lower yourself to the attacker's level. At this point, I don't think anything in this thread requires admin action, but consider yourself warned about your communication style. Be gentler in the future and don't hesitate to ask other editors for help. ウィキペディアは弱肉強食の社会ではない。論争の時、英語のコミュニケーションの問題を考えてください。喧嘩の思いをおいて、他のユーザーに丁寧に頼むほうがいい。 Shii (tock) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shii: -- Yes, I do think I am being attacked. We learn from experience.

It should be unsurprising that my experience has taught me to hesitate to ask other editors for help. I would have thought my diffs here and in this thread were asking for help. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Kim Dent-Brown that inaction in this case would be inexcusable. Assuming good faith, I take Enkyo's obscurity of communication to stem from inability, rather than sly trickery. Inability to communicate isn't a crime or moral failure, but it is a serious hindrance towards editing a collaborative encyclopedia. Therefore, however expert and advanced Enkyo is in his field, WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, especially since their inablility to collaborate has been such a long-term problem, showing no improvement after a one-year arbcom block. That's the biggest problem; but it doesn't help, either, that the recent chronology of their actions does look like moral failure or trickery. Leaving for five days when an ANI thread is starting to lean towards sanctions and reemerging as soon as the thread is archived, is… well, I don't find Hijiri's term "sabotage" unreasonable. I support an indefinite ban. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: - do you mean "block" or "ban"? GiantSnowman 09:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I mean ban, but I'm agreeable to supporting a block as an alternative. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

• I agree with Shii in his/her posting of 21:02, 10 September 2013. There is no need for admin action at this stage. I think the advice Shii gave is very good advice.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There is more than one answer; and your question offers an opportunity to convert this incident into something constructive. The short answer is that I had other things to do in real life. I can be more specific, if you like. It also accurate to explain that I didn't know what to say. Why not keep this thread open while I draft a more specific response? --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A less-than-satisfactory response, I'm afraid. Was it real life interfering, or was it the fact that you didn't know what to say? The fact you are taking days to 'draft' a response fills me with dread. GiantSnowman 14:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have a question to Enkyo2, too, which goes to good faith in regard to their post above. Enkyo, when Kim Dent-Brown posts "We either have a knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded by trivial complaints, or a slyly disruptive editor who masks the damage he causes in a swirl of hard-to-understand verbiage. If there's a third explanation I don't see it." and you respond by saying "Kim Dent-Brown got it right. Despite Hijiri's complaints, my contributions history shows the work of a "knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded"", is it because you don't understand what Kim said ( = the "either—or" syntax), or because you're trying to give the false impression that Kim supports you and says you're being unfairly hounded? I don't see a third explanation. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen: There is a third explanation. Thank you for the opportunity this question provides. Thank you for the way this question was structured. --Enkyo2 (talk)

Enkyo, you should recognize that you have just "dodged the question" here, by saying that there is "a third explanation" without giving it. I am beginning to see the benefits of a ban, although we could at least hold off for this intriguing promise of a "full response". Shii (tock) 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: "Sabotage" in this context is a curious word choice. I don't understand where this comes from. Is this the first time this word has been used in a ANi thread? Where can I read more about this?

  The heading of this thread leads me to believe that it is primarily about Hijiri's complaint that I am somehow doing something which is identified at WP:HOUND. Is this not the subject of this thread?

  There is a lot packed into the paragraph with which this thread begins. If I am struggling to know which things to acknowledge, which things to ignore and what order a response should take, it is understandable, is it not? --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved Enkyo's recent post down from near the top to where people will actually notice it as a new post, i. e. just above here. I hope the move will be an advantage; if not, just move it back; I'm trying to help you here, Enkyo. As for which things to acknowledge etc: you need to answer direct questions, for instance Giant Snowman's and mine above. I don't understand why you're practically ignoring all that and circling back to the first paragraph of the thread, which you've already responded to. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

Hijiri is an excellent and scrupulous editor. He has exacting standards of high-quality verification, and has been elaborately responsive to comments by others. Summing up the evidence and comments (particularly from Shii) Enkyo has often favoured poor quality primary or tertiary sources, which itself, in controversial issues likely to worry other editors, is itself problematical. I have a temperamental affinity with Hijiri's way of going about encyclopedic verification, (a bias, I admit) and I know that coping with frivolous, gamey sourcing by loose cannon editors can be exasperating. Enkyo has been suspended once, has changed identities, can write straightforwardly but, to judge from many comments, does use inordinately complicated language verging on the incomprehensible at crucial moments when he is challenged (sounds like a dodge, and as for dodging, he fell silent when asked to clarify his behaviour, only to pop up when the thread was archived. None of this looks good. It is a behavioural issue, and trying to turn the complaint into WP:Boomerang against Hijiri is, at this point, a further sign of manipulative or tactical tendencies. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. We should not have to choose between Team-Hijiri88 and Enkyo2. Both enrich the lives of many people by making useful edits to the encyclopedia. Both have faults. Lt us work with Enkyo2 to help him/her correct his/her faults. That may mean an element of carrot and stick - the potential stick would be a series of escalating blocks. There is no need for all this wiki-warfare.

As for Enkyo2's explanation, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. He/she probably felt bullied. I know how that feels.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, could you please explain how you propose the community "work" with Enkyo2 when 5 years of previous "work"—ranging from polite discussion, to requests for change, to specific explanations of what's wrong, to complaints, to noticeboard posts, to RFCUs, and, eventually, to 2 trips to ArbCom, admonishments from Arbcom, and a 1 year ban—haven't changed anything? I don't think we can fundamentally change a person's communication style. This needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would he/she agree to be mentored? This would have to have some fairly stiff agreed conditions, with specified and escalating penalties if he/she broke them. If he/she is willing, I would mentor him/her. But the conditions would have to be negotiated before I would start.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Read Qwyrxian's comment in the previous thread. That too was already tried. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Presumably this comment. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

• I have reviewed each of Enkyo2's responses above, and they are as reported—indistinguishable from the output of a Postmodernism Generator. Editors should not have to talk to an echo chamber, then have ANI reports derailed by meaningless replies that happen to use some appropriate words. Toddy1's suggestion of working with Enkyo2 appears completely unworkable to me—some things cannot be swept under the carpet, and either an editor can eventually give a comprehensible response, or they cannot. Those in the cannot group cause too much disruption—if they can find a way to edit that does not involve disputes with good editors, fine. Otherwise, they have to stop editing Misplaced Pages as collaboration is an essential requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think I've seen enough. This diff as the latest response to this thread is a reasonable final demonstration to me that Enkyo is either unable or unwilling to edit collaboratively. I'd be in favour of an indefinite WP:CIR block but I'm not going to impose one myself as I've obviously been involved here. I'll leave it up to other people to gauge whether/when a consensus has been reached. Kim Dent-Brown 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Bishonen's, Johnuniq's and Kim's findings above, and I believe there is a consensus for action here. I have therefore indefinitely blocked Enkyo2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to go for assistance

What's the best place to ask for assistance when there is a discussion in which you feel the other party is not behaving appropriately (making false accusations, avoiding directly discussion the topic at hand etc)? I need both an outside third opinion on the topic, and someone to look at the behaviour of the other editor because it's incredibly frustrating to deal with (I suspect they may be stonewalling in the hope that I'll give up and go away). WP:3O isn't an option as there was originally a third party in the conversation (they gave up on talk, but continued reverting) and WP:DRN states that it's not about editor behaviour. Cheers, Number 57 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to try WP: RFC as an avenue for dispute resolution. Herr Kommisar 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried RFCs before, and unfortunately my experience is that they're worse than useless, mostly because they attract almost no outside input, so it just ends up with the same group of POV pushers from both sides of the debate turning up with the same old arguments and predictable voting patterns. Is there anywhere else? Number 57 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, an RFC would at least show that you've tried to work the problem through the normal dispute resolution channels. If you try anything more drastic at this point (say, Arbitration), you risk getting it rejected for not having first tried the usual procedures. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started one here. Outside input would be most appreciated to prevent it descending into the usual farce. However, should my prediction above come to pass, where would I go next? And won't it just lead to accusations of forum shopping? Number 57 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's now got to the point where I think I need a venue to raise concerns about editor behaviour - the dispute is a separate issue. Where's the best place for this? Number 57 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the disruptive behaviour. Are they edit warring? If so, you can raise the matter at WP:AN3. If it's a complex case of long-term or multifaceted disruption, you can post here at WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more a case of refusing to debate in a constructive manner - making false claims about what has been said by the other party, refusal to acknowledge sources, cherrypicking, smearing the other editor with claims of bias and ulterior motives etc. It's infuriating, and makes it very difficult to discuss civilly. Number 57 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi 57, since this article deals with Israeli-Palestinian topics it is covered under a previous ARBCOM decision WP:ARBPIA. You can request enforcment at WP:AE. It would be helpful if you read through some past cases to get an idea of what a good report looks like. And yeesh, the edit he made to the RFC would be enough for at least a warning at AE in my opinion - I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest because I'm pretty sure I know exactly where it's going. GL Nformation 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just wondering what exactly I can request enforcement for? I can't see any specific sanctions that would apply here aside from general disruptiveness. Number 57 19:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (replaced by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

It was immediately obvious to me that the rephrase of your RFC question was overtly non-neutral - demonstrating a pattern of WP:TE would be a good start. Nformation 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Noinformation, could you kindly explain why you believe that No57's phrasing of the RFC (supported only by a circular sourcing of a Misplaced Pages article) is preferable to Nishidani's rephrase supported by a body of cited expert academic literature. Further, given that our WP:NPOV policy tells us to represent what has been published in reliable sources, what is "overtly non-neutral" and tendentious about rephrasing the RFC in line with published academic literature rather than using circular sourcing of Misplaced Pages articles? Dlv999 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to be a lot of dancing in terms of whom this report is about. User:Nishidani should have been notified at the outset or close to it. I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Number used in his RfC a phrasing which he regards as 'neutral' but which sources of very high quality identify as non-neutral, and I rephrased the question in the light of those 11academic sources, with all of the evidence laid before potential contributors. This was called 'ridiculous', and now my behaviour is complained of. In the context of posting an RfC, to notify this board or any other that one of the two disputants is under report works out, whatever the objective intention, to giving an appearance that one editor, Number, is 'neutral' and the other editor is not. I don't think Number57 meant that. But in this place,that's how it will look, and it has now contaminated the RfC. There is nothing in this, except a deep dislike, and I am not going to waste my time in replying further.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond; PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain /c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds...", but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds". MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds". The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars". Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it. If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Misplaced Pages is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Misplaced Pages is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jeff Rudd and the Direct Democracy Ireland, COI and off-Wiki accusations

Jeff Rudd has a conflict of interest on the Direct Democracy Ireland article, he is the current chairman of Louth Direct Democracy Ireland, and has tried to edit it to remove cited material. This has been re-added, with numerous cites. His COI has been brought to the relevant notice board. However he has previously, unconnectedly, recieved a threat. He has added to the DDI talkpage that "I wish Misplaced Pages to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me". And he has added infomation naming one of the other editors on the DDI page to . This is not assuming good faith, not following dispute resolutions and a possible case of trying to for meat puppetry, not to mention intimadating any editors espieacally the one named, with police mentioned. I have edited the aricle but only manual of style edits. Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I, Jeff Rudd have not continued to edit the page of which there is a conflict. I have not done so for a number of days now. That said, I have repeatedly requested the removal of UNPROVED allegations - the cited material that is allegations, NOT PROOF - that even now persist on a page that describes my national organisation. Anything I have stated in on record and I stand by it. I'm up for public election soon and if you take this into account, you might see that any sensible person is not willing to post anything 'daft' for want of a better description, in that light.

I have pointed out on more than one occasion with detail why a current Dublin based editor to the organisation page that I represent - has conflicting interests. I have even detailed where he has lied and a Misplaced Pages admin has also backed this by by stating that I have been active only for "days" not "weeks" as lied by another. Namely this same person is additionally a supporter of an organisation and ideology that opposes mine and others - who's pages he also alters. He has openly stated that he is of an element that opposes other political directions offered in Ireland.

As such,as the Wiki rules stand still, any competitors should NOT be editing that of those that are opposite them or oppose them. One continues do do this however and is still getting away with it.

I have from the very outset, made clear who I am, what I am connected to and I have nothing to hide. I have been from the outset, upfront and honest. I use my real name and still stand for honestly and transparency. It is the very cornerstone of my organisation. No if's or buts. I have no problem taking this matter to the media where I will there too stand on record and state the very same things I have here.

It is unfortunate that I have indeed received threats. I have stated this while remaining silent about who is responsible but as a precaution have informed others at home. Given the historic nature/actions (easily googled) of those that oppose my organisation and others that are only peaceful in intention, the threat upon my life is very real and not to be taken lightly. Its not a light matter, nor a joking matter, nor do I post for "meat puppetry" - the threats are very real and my family and I do not take them lightly at all - nor do others close to home. Researching the background of recent "republican history in Ireland" it can be discovered that these threats are very real and sadly on many occasions, have been carried out to full extent.

My original request is simple and still is asked of, regarding my organisations website. I have asked that an allegation that still exists unproved, be edited out. Again, this is easily googled.

On Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI) webpage its stated that the ideology of DDI is "Freeman on the land" (even that is stated wrong - its Freeman OF the land)) - nothing is further from the truth. I have stated (and the following can be easily checked)that:

• There is NO Freeman ideology in the constitution of DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman ideology in the rules of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman postings on our forums.
• There is NO Freeman ideology on our website.
• There is NO freeman mandate in the Mandate of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman direction of any kind in the DDI organisation.
• Even the founder Ray Whitehead was never a Freeman - and NEVER even ALLEGED to be one!

...Yet a political person - a competitor (COI conflict rules alone!) - we know now supports an opposing position - he's stated this himself, is allowed anon' to post that we are of a wacky Freeman origin - and ONLY references ALLEGATIONS, many which their own party has actually put out to try besmirch the name of our growing popular organisation! They continuously reference their own allegations submitted into their own socialist paper tabloids produced from their own offices in Dublin, Ireland - and they so this though their socialist papers/mag offering them then up as supposed sudden proof - when its not - its just allegations started by them in the first place - without no proof provided.

I will continue to peacefully battle for the truth to be told - I'm hoping that eventually Misplaced Pages and its page on Direct Democracy Ireland, will do so too and adjust what is a easy edit for anyone. I have NOT done it myself - as I could have done - out of respect to the COI rules that have been rightly pointed out to me. I respect the rules and I stand by them by upholding them now, after being informed of their existence.

I hope you will address the COI of others that is with a political agenda, altering what I wish to see changed, to disparage my organisation for the betterment of one he supports, edits and absolutely states he follows. I have given evidence to this matter also.

I do not wish to antagonise the good admin of Misplaced Pages but I on behalf of my many, many members, those that elected me and others, must continue to contest the lies that have been spread as ALLEGATIONS and accepted amazingly later as PROOF with nothing to back it subsequently!

If highlighting these lies means having to expose that Misplaced Pages is continuing to state incorrect facts and up to now presently stand alone (ye do) in stating them incorrectly (ye do) and have them posted on your site service (ye do), then I must highlight this, defending my members though other media be it website, TV or radio, etc for the clearing of their name.

I expect anyone else would do same if they were in my position and the position of my organisation. To not do this at least is to fail to represent the peaceful people that to this date, back the efforts made by Direct Democracy Ireland.

Jeff Rudd (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• At COIN, I found that Jeff Rudd had a clear COI with Direct Democracy Ireland topics. Since he did have a valid point, I then posted an argument supporting Jeff at NPOVN. Basically, reference to Freeman/Freemen in the Direct Democracy Ireland article should be removed for the time being. Unfortunately, Jeff then posted more of the above at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Direct Democracy Ireland, making it hard for editors to address the issue. His last post to article space was 17:37, 7 September 2013, so he is complying with the 01:13, 8 September 2013 COIN finding. If you look at the COIN thread, Jeff has toned it down a little. If you have time, please consider the NPOVN request and also help Jeff with his participation in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to update on the DDI page Snappy has removed the reference in the 'Ideology' header to the Freeman movement which seems to be the main thing Jeff is unhappy about. However, the close links of the party and the party leader to the Freeman movement (which is well cited and referenced) has been retained in the body text. This seems like a fair compromise and I'm happy enough with it. --CommieMark (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• JR seems incapable of making a succinct argument with regard to any requested edits to the article and has instead resorted to personal attacks, threats and incoherent rants. His commentary at WP:COIN would be enough to get most ordinary editors blocked and he has posted not dissimilar rants here and on the article talk page. At least, I acknowledge, he seems to have backed down from his claim that all anonymous editors (pretty much everyone that hasn't done what he has done and assert his right to have his noble cause represented here because of his elected position) out themselves before being allowed to edit the article. But his continued attacks against another editor (today!) suggest he's not getting the message. His allegations that an unidentified editor has a ("no if's or but's") conflict if interest is a fallacy. He either needs to quit it with the personal attacks and unprovable (let alone unproven) allegations or he should be blocked, regardless of the validity of his claims. He's clearly not here to build WP, but to represent the interests of his political party. Stalwart111 08:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted a baiting by JR on the talkpage, he is here to shine a light of brillance on his party, discredit wikipedia and use chilling tactics by using his own webpage and threats of police intervention to achieve this. Murry1975 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not acceptable here under any circumstances, but he clearly hasn't worked that out. Suggest a 7-day cool-down block so he can spend some time reading WP:NPA, WP:AGF and some general 5 pillar stuff and working out whether he wants to build an encyclopedia or just defend his cause and attack others. Stalwart111 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also nominated his user page for deletion as an obvious WP:SOAPBOX violation. Stalwart111 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Threat and deleting pictures w/o getting a consensus

User:Werieth has threatened me of seeking a ban topic for myself if I didn't stop reverting his edit.

First of all, I reverted his edit on Desire (Geri Halliwell song) due to removing an image that was under WP:BRD discussion and a consensus about keeping the image or not, wasn't done yet and yet he STILL removed it w/o getting with a final consensus about the image.

Second, this user has been threatening a lot of users.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria. 'Consensus' is not necessary to remove non-free content not meeting the criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There's currently an ongoing discussion about keeping the image or not, and according to WP:BRD: "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". Another user has raised points in keeping the image, so User:Werieth shouldn't remove an image without getting a final consensus.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A talk-page consensus cannot overrule Misplaced Pages policy - and Misplaced Pages has to take copyright considerations seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the article is the only fair use rationale for the image, is there a reason it can't just be taken to FFD, and remain in the article until the discussion there resolves? Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously have not seen eye to eye with Werieth in that his reading of WP:NFCC is sometimes not always consistent with other editor's readings or current consensus on certain points and he edit wars to remove images despite discussions on his talk page or articles talk pages. I am glad he is pointing to specific points of WP:NFCC in his edit summaries now since in the past he used edit summaries of "see WP:NFC", which lead to a lot of reversions back and worth, user talk page warnings by Werieth and threats of blocks by Werieth that could have been avoided by using better communication. A lot of editors do not know all of the ins and outs of WP:NFCC and most just need to be told what the rules are and sometimes why they are and the editors understand why the images cannot be used. In this case there are two different readings of WP:NFCC and because Werieth refuses to take images to Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion when reverted as he has been advised by numerous editors and admins, I started this discussion to try and reach a consensus on the correct reading. He left a message on the talk page and then proceeded to make two more reversions for a total of three reversions less than 24 hours despite being told that these image removals are not exceptions to WP:3RR because they are not unquestionably violations and could result in his being blocked for edit warring. Aspects (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, Hotwiki is really misrepresenting the facts of this case, I threatened a topic ban because this user does not understand policy in regards to non-free media, he has already been taken to ANI where it was proven that his actions went against policy. NFCC is fairly clear about what is and isn't allowed. There is a general consensus that 1 image is allowed for visual identification without critical commentary of the image. Any more images must have reliably sourced critical commentary on the image (Otherwise NFCC#8 isnt met). I also need to laugh since Aspects has been tag teaming with Hotwiki to re-add files and ignore NFCC. Werieth (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• ASpects and Hotwiki need to be careful of tag-teaming each other's reverts, though. This is gaming the system and if repeated on a regular basis is just as likely (indeed, more likely) to lead to a block as exceeding 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Werieth: you might like to re-read the advice I gave you here. Stripping images from articles is making people angry, lots of people. Better you should tag the excess images as F7 or list the article at WP:NFCR as having too many images. This gives the uploader plus the wider community a better opportunity to comment and discuss. If there's several people angry at you and complaining, perhaps it's time to re-think the way you are handling these images? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Werieth:you may have the best intentions in removing non-free content but it is not policy to once more delete images from an article such as EWO Brewery Ltd. after they have been moved from Commons and tagged as "fair use" on English Misplaced Pages with a valid rationale. ► Philg88 ◄ 06:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  The files may meet fair use criteria, however wikipedia's rules on non-free media WP:NFCC are far more strict. Your usage does not meet those criteria. Werieth (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Same problem with the guy. But at least he's motivated me to split the games into separate articles lol. (He's falsely claimed Dragon Knight franchise article is a list article, despite not being in even one "list of" category.) --Niemti (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has also deleted pictures and repeatedly deleted content that I am trying to bring into line, with no discussion, here: Scandrett Regional Park. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

E James Bowman, I can see nothing whatever wrong in Werieth's removal of off-topic material from the Scandrett Regional Park article - and it is entirely false to say that there has been 'no discussion', as your talk page makes clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User is trying to take me to edit warring, breaks wikipedia rules and calls me duplicate

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

Hallo. User Хаченци is trying to take me into edit warring and removes "Citation Needed" from date, which is not cited in article Armenian_alphabet. Britannica suggests that oldest script of Armenian alphabet is dated back to 9-10th century, when Armenian traditional view suggests date of 406 AD. Archaeological proof is more reliable than attribution or traditional view. Still we must contain both point of view in date but seems this user tries to put only point of view he/she agrees. He already reverted edit of "Citation needed" without any evidence or reason given. He calls me duplicate account, as well... Please take a look at this. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional Notes: User Хаченци has posted in WP:SPI regarding his accusation of sockpuppetry (). In addition to this, I did place request in WP:RPP due to my own suspicions of this turning into an edit war. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not make any edit after he reverted 2 edits without given reason. I try to keep this article calm to avoid it frozen on Wrong Version. I only discuss this and try to achieve consensus. I checked history of this user, he has history of Edit warring.

I will try to keep situation in normal conditions. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that entry at WP:SPI for procedural reasons. Quick checkuser requests are for cases that do not include sockpuppetry. Хаченци has been informed how to file a proper sockpuppet investigation. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jerry Pepsi continues to be malicious

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

Not sure why you continue to let https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jerry_Pepsi&action=edit&redlink=1 maliciously edit but if you look at the edit he just did recently, he undid the amount of episodes aired which are 11, he reverted it back to 10; he undid one of the episode listings, he undid one the story points. he continues to act maliciously. it had been a few days since the page was edited, under the impression there had been a truce reached. However, he continues to play tit for tat and enter false information and just behave in an inappropriate way. the page at question is https://en.wikipedia.org/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating (Tvfanatics (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tvfanatics: Is there a particular reason you have neither discussed this matter at the article's talk page or notified the user about this ANI report? Your refusal to discuss at the talk page was mentioned the last time you filed an ANI report against Jerry Pepsi. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• How much longer must this continue? Tvfanatics is a SPA that is apparently used by multiple people and may also be a sockpuppet of User:Swingerlove. How is continuing to allow these people to edit this one article and hurl constant accusations beneficial to the project? Please, end all of our misery and permanently block this editor. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: what are you talking about? there is only one person using this account and it is ME, MYSELF AND I. ANd I have no affiliation with Swingerlove, take it up with them. I love how you are trying to deflect from the fact that you are malicious and reverting edits because you have control issues and not because you are concerned about the veracity of the page. Please block user Jerry pepsi from editing. (Tvfanatics (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

TVFantatics has been operating as an SPA. He refrained from editing while the page was protected (other than a request to have his edits replaced) and quickly returned here when his changes were questioned and he was asked to discuss. This editor cannot contribute productively. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: you're really good at deflecting from your malicious edits. can you tell us all why you continue to undo factual edits, like the fact that 11 episodes aired, but you reverted the edit to 10 episodes? i would love to hear your answer to this question (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

This is most likely the last time anyone will warn you about this: Do not refer to his edits as malicious. It is a violation of WP:NPA. He has been trying to discuss the issue with you, and you have done nothing but open multiple ANI reports against him for it. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Look at the history, he started this by accusing me of vandalism. I am simply a fan and entering the correct information and he continues to undo the edits without reason. I have tried to talk to him and engage him and all he does is undo the edits. We will keep going I guess since no one seems to want to stop him from editing this page. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) I have an email from the wikipedia information team (Axl Matulic)and he agrees with me that my edits were not "vandalism" and that Jerry Pepsi was out of line saying that, yet, i speak the truth, that he being malicious and vindictive, and you threaten my account? this is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a fan, be an editor. Confirm via reliable sources that your edit is valid. Include said reliable sources. If someone reverts you, discuss it with them. It takes two to tango and you are the one not looking good at the moment. 129.9.104.9 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please show Diffs of the instances in which you initiated communication in a civil manner with Jerry Pepsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Today "And no, jerry pepsi did not try to talk to us/me once when the page was locked, I don't know why you are saying that." Aug. 29 Aug. 28 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have done that over and over!! The official source of information is the show itself, I get all the info from the showtime show page! How more official can you get??? And I have tried to speak with Jerry pepsi, he started it by accusing me of vandalism, and wikipedia agreed with me that it was NOT, so he was trying to start drama! he is unreasonable! i have done nothing butdo accurate edits, and there are many fans on wikipedia. that is ridiculous, i see edits from fans all the time.

@JerryPepsi: i know you are signing in with your IP address, I know you are the one asking for DIFFS, go to your user page, the very first entry "what's the deal?" you are passive aggressive and you think you own the page for some reason. i also have Axl Matulic from wikipedia acknowledging that some of your edits were spiteful. I can post the email here or forward to ADMIN if they want. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Perhaps no one has explained the principles of Truth versus Verifiable. Perhaps if you engaged in the project or article discussion pages Jerry Pepsi would be willing to explain the manual of style to you as well. Also, I am not Jerry Pepsi and I invite a CU to investigate that. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

TVFanatics, Note that you doubled the size of ANI. I fixed that and put your intended edit back in. And I am not Jerry... 129.9.72.10 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest you go to the talk page of the article you are editing and DISCUSS the edits you want to make and why. Removing last names, why? Episode numbers, why? Revert war, NO! 129.9.72.10 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked him on his page - go to his user page and you will see - I continue to ask him why he reverts the edits and he doesnt respond, he just reverts. the show doesn't use last names anywhere, it's what it says on the show page, so i am reflecting the accuracy of the show. 4 characters's last names were used because their names appeared in an article. i have been looking for a reference that shows the other characters last names but there is none. he hasn't found one either but he keeps reverting . and he reverts the epsiode numbers and i don't know why. that is a question for jerry pepsi (and he reverts the fact that one of the girls has been a girlfriend for 3 years!! it says so on the show page). (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

I will not comment on a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. Also, I have informed Axl that you have mentioned him here. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute. I also don't see malice, even though in the early edits on 28 August, Tvfanatics was removing sources that Jerry Pepsi restored - I don't think it was done with intent to disrupt. I think it's best that both parties sit down, take a deep breath or two (or more than two, if that's your thing :) ), and start discussing article content at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated WP:GAME violations

I know people are tired of the Falklands units dispute, but I'm bringing this here because I really want it to stop.

User:Martinvl has spent the past four and a half years trying to push his POV on units on Falklands articles. His tactics have rarely reached above the standard of gaming the system, trying to force his POV by literally any means possible. I posted this evidence last night on the talk page currently under RFC here. Given his comment today I think it wants greater attention.

The RFC is, in and of itself, a clear example of gaming the system. He claims that it is not allowed for WikiProjects to have their own style guides, even where they only cover matters irrelevant outside the topic. I've pointed out that many do - one two three have all been brought up there. His insistence is that this must either be a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline or else a "failed proposal". He is ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

Martin has spent the last year or so insisting that the page at hand never had consensus. I suggest we look at the history:

The page came into use in practice in July 2010. Neither Martin nor anyone else objected, though at that time it was rolled out across the WikiProject (a big change because the previous consensus was imperial-first everywhere). The single opponent (not Martin) opposed because he did not believe it would be implemented in good faith. In March 2011 Martin told users to follow it "to the letter". In June 2011 Martin was citing it () to back up his edits. In October 2012 he redirected it, and was reverted some time later when someone noticed (his claimed premise was rejected by RFC - also an apparent attempt at gaming). On 28 November 2012 he was still quoting it as a rationale for his edits. The very next day, he claimed it was never consensus. Martin treated the page as a consensus for well over two years - acted for all the world as though it was the standing consensus - and then one day he decided it never did. Stale? No, because Martin is still making that claim.

I contend that the insistence that the page never achieved consensus is another example of gaming the system. Again, ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. An involved admin said in reference to precisely this situation that "anybody who is disruptive should have been sanctioned" (top part) - well I am asking for that sanction, as the disruption is still ongoing.

There are other examples. From making controversial edits on these topics under the disguise of misleading edit summaries to the argument that geography is "scientific" for the purposes of MOSNUM. I could go on and on.

I bring this up here now because he now one again trying to push that geography point. On previous evidence, his argument is that as geography is a science, geographic distances should not just be kilometres-first, but kilometres-only. And not just on Falklands articles or UK-related articles. By this interpretation, the article Nebraska may not mention miles at all. Is there anyone here who believes that this is what WP:UNITS says or means - even in theory?

I contend that this is arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy and puriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy. And based on this comment I contend that the gaming has not ended, and will not end with the moratorium proposed there.

We have seen this sort of gaming continually from Martin on these articles the last four and a half years. This has been massively damaging to the topic. We cannot continue like this. Given that Martin will not stop on his own, he must be stopped by admins.

I ask for Martinvl to be topic banned, such that he is not allowed to add, modify, discuss or otherwise edit or have anything to do with units of measure on Falklands-related articles, or the rules that govern them, in order to prevent the disruption that this continual gaming causes. Kahastok talk 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks like sour grapes from not getting the wished-for consensus about metric units at the Falkland Islands, spillover from the above discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok_is_disrupting_a_GA_attempt. I don't think you have a strong enough case to ban the guy who keeps you from getting your way. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which wished-for consensus do you think I want? I was perfectly happy to leave it with the status quo, the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS which Martin suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisted never existed. I'm not entirely happy with the way the vote is going there, but the best thing for the article is for the whole thing to end. Now. Rather than in two or three years' time when after I or others have come here six or seven times to point out that the same thing is still going on, after who knows how many more editors have been driven away and after who knows how much improvement to the article will have been prevented.

I believe it is clear from Martin's comments that even with an (apparently toothless) moratorium we're not done here because Martin will continue to try and game the rule being proposed.

The only reason we have to keep on having this discussion is because Martin keeps insisting on bringing it up. And whenever he brings it up it's with yet another ruse to try and WP:GAME the system. Do you think that these articles are best off with endless discussion on units of measure, where there is practically no trust to be found because one editor keeps on gaming the system? I don't. Kahastok talk 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think FALKLANDSUNITS should not exist. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, does that make it OK to repeatedly game the system in this area? Bear in mind that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS itself is one of the few agreed rules that he has not managed to game here. His focus is on removing it and using instead something more easily-gamable, like WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk 06:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• First off: I have just full-protected WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for 2 weeks because the editors can't seem to get together and discuss. That being said, I believe outside views are necessary. - Penwhale | 22:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• If WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant to the existing WP:MOS, then should it not be MfDed? If it contradicts the MOS, then it shouldn't be valid either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I see, it is redundant to the MOS. I linked to MOS:CONVERSIONS in the still open thread, where it covers the same things as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which is where the absurdity comes in. There is some sort of pro-<insert your units of preference>-comes-first thing going on, which some editors are trying to get locked in stone as a policy for articles relating the Falklands only. Ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It has to be absolutely prescriptive because there is so much gaming going on. If we could trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS then there would not be a problem with not having any additional rule. But we can't, so there is. The point of this ANI is to put us in a position where we can trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS, so that the impact of the change is lessened. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be about a proposal under discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal in which Martinvl made the clever support of a motion to get rid of WP:FALKLANDUNITS, while interpreting WP:UNITS in a novel way that most other people voicing their support think is incorrect. Due to this, Kahastok has decided to oppose the proposal even though it is based on his own statement. Blocking or banning anyone or everyone involved for such a trivial cause seems overkill. (The argument has been added to WP:LAME - and not by me.) Adding voices to the proposal seems simpler and more likely to keep well meaning editors. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I was already opposed for lack of enforcement, a point that I have always made clear is needed if we're ever going to stop this from continually coming up. If there's supposed to be a moratorium, that's a waste of time if it's going to be ignored just as soon as Martin decides he doesn't like the rule proposed, and starts the entire argument back up again. And, based on experience, he will find an excuse - almost certainly one that violates WP:GAME. In the past we had people coming back to the page every three weeks (for well over a year) claiming that they wanted to see if consensus had changed this time. Admins did nothing about it then either.

Frankly, the way this conversation is going demonstrates why simply hoping he'll improve this time and saying call in the admins if he doesn't is futile and why we need explicit enforcement provisions. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that the only other person who supports the same viewpoint as you is a community banned sockmaster? Perhaps that should show you that you may be wrong as well? I'm inclined to agree with Martinvl if he says FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant/invalid/whatever - because it is. A few people here have voiced the opinion that FALKLANDSUNITS should go. And your accusations of WP:GAME seem to be lacking in evidence, support, and seem to be incorrect as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not true. There are enough of us who've had enough of this debate, and enough of us who have a problem with the attempts at forcing the point. I am far from the the only one who said that this required a moratorium, and I am not exactly the only one who opposed in the poll, on the basis that it was not strong enough against gaming.

It is disappointing that you feel that instead of actually discussing genuine content issues, we should have to spend our entire time arguing over units of measure interminably, watching Martin try every trick in the book, and a few that are not, to enforce his POV.

I must admit, I have no idea what you think would violate WP:GAME. It seems to me that if repeatedly Wikilawyering and deliberately twisting the word of policy in attempt to force his POV - directly against the spirit of those same policies - is not gaming then nothing is. Let us not pretend that Martin is not an editors of many years' standing and who is well acquainted with the nuances of policy.

I find the fact that you make the attack about sockpuppets demonstrates the weakness of your point - it is ad hominem, and has nothing to do with anything in particular. The fact that your community banned sockmaster is a community banned sockmaster does not mean that he does not occasionally make good points. While we might revert the edits of the banned, we must always look toward the good of the encyclopædia, and it may well be that the good of the encyclopædia means accepting that even sockpuppets can make good and relevant points that, if they were supported by anyone else, would be significant here. Kahastok talk 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, talk page guidelines

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

I was hoping to get a few extra eyes on Canstusdis (talk · contribs). I ran across them a while ago at the Joseph Smith article, where they seem to be edit warring against multiple users (they've been riding at 3RR for two days now). As far as I can tell they have been exhibiting similar behavior at Hermann Fegelein as well, warring against multiple users and accusing others of bad faith. They have been asked many times to lay off the reverting, to discuss and build consensus, and to follow BRD ( ) but they generally respond by ignoring or blanking ( ). Anyway, the reason I came here instead of AN3 is because of the disruptive way they've been editing their own and others' comments, reverting anybody who tries to fix it. Here they selectively edit a user's post on their talk page, blanking portions, perhaps in an attempt to sanitize the talk page. Here they removed part of their own comment that had been responded to, making the following comment look silly/confusing. When I informed them of WP:Redact and tried to teach them how to do it right with <del></del> tags, they reverted me (citing WP:Redact). Later, when their blatant editing of other users' comments was undone, they reverted that as well. (These last two are after being informed of WP:Redact and being asked to stop.) Anyway, I'm seeing a trend of being generally disruptive, and wasting the time and trying the patience of lots of people (myself included). I would like for an outside administrator to step in and let them know that this type of behavior is inappropriate. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I to have notice the same thing. User:Canstusdis has a habit of editing others comments and his own comments after others have replied, in order to change there meaning to make them agree with him or make them confusing. This is a violation of WP:TPOC and WP:REDACTED and I have example and even more blatant example of his editing of others comments to change there meanings.

1. Example 1 - He completely changed my post to his talk page, changing its meaning to make it sound like I agreed with his very rude comments made on another page. My comments were very non-conformational.
2. Example 2 - When user Bahooka reverted the edit in example 1, Canstusdis put back the inappropriate changes and told user Bahooka to "Leave my talk page alone please", reposting my inappropriately modified comment.

Canstusdis dose this order to change the meaning of what others say, in order to create agreements to his conduct when none exists or just causing confusion. This is on top of his Edit Warring over the Joseph Smith page as noted by Adjwilley above. While I am involved in my two examples, I wish to note that I have not been involved in examples listed by Adjwilley. As an editor uninvolved in the 3RR issues on Joseph Smith, I think it's clear that Canstusdis has no problem violating WP:TPOC, WP:REDACTED, and GAMING the 3RR rules.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. There's no doubt that reverting to their preferred version four times in 40 hours is edit warring, and perhaps also gaming of the 3RR. I've blocked for 24 hours and also warned them about disruptive talkpage editing and battleground demeanour. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

TonyTheTiger (again) and implications of racism

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

On 30th August, as part of a long-running dispute at WT:FOUR, TonyTheTiger made accusations of racist behaviour by other editors towards him. After a discussion here at ANI (in fact, at the time of writing still on this page and further comments such as "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not.", I blocked TTT for 48 hours for disruptive editing, a block that was endorsed. As I noted at the time, this was not the first time that TTT had been blocked for making such comments - to previous AN discussion from June 2012 (e.g. "If you ask me I was banned for a bunch of racist lies that never applied".)

Latest problem: at the TFA requests page. Two authors/articles are competing for the TFA slot on 28th September. One article was nominated a while ago. TTT was unable to nominate his article until it passed FAC in the last couple of days. He then notified a number of people about his nomination in a way that annoyed some but not others. Conversation on this and some points got increasingly off-topic, so I applied {{hat}}/{{hab}} to stop it getting worse. Despite this, TTT posted another inflammatory comment within the hatted section: ["Crisco 1492, next time you want to convince me through WP:AN that you should have to have proof to call people racists think about this kind of craziness (referring to my 13:03, 10 September 2013 above). A little thanks would be appreciated next time. #learnsomemanners #evenifthemessangerisblack #bobbleheadsatWPmakemesick."

The implication to me, at least, is clear - TTT takes the view that people are taking against him in the TFAR dispute because he is black and they are racist. I removed the comment, saying that he was on thin ice. In the light of the fact that TTT has recently blocked for exactly this type of unsubstantiated slur, should further action be taken? I am going to notify TTT of this thread then go to bed. Bencherlite 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think a longer block may be necessary, unless Tony can provide evidence of racism. I fail to see why Tony mentioned me here, as I'm pretty sure he would have realised that I would almost definitely not have agreed with his implication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)Maybe I should ask my query here: The 13:03, 10 September 2013 edit included the following query "Query After having slept on my thoughts, I am now curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page to be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?" (but added in subsequent edit)
  • Each individual (I think there were 6 or 7) who I contacted and all interested onlookers in the September 28 TFA consideration should have been appreciative of the initiative I took in informing them that an alternate choice for the date that they had taken an interest in existed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Ask anyone at TFA. When you have supported a date and an alternate with a significantly superior score for the same date is nominated, being informed of this change is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Every last one of them should have been thankful of my effort. Instead an idiot and a bunch of bobblehead pilers on decide. Hey this is TTT. Lets all come by and FU¢# with him and say bad things about him when he in fact did us a service. Let's even use this as an excuse to oppose his nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Tony, please read WP:NPA. Saying "an idiot and a bunch of bobblehead pilers on decide", on ANI, is not going to get you much sympathy. As for the talk page posts, read what they were saying and see if you can see it from their perspective. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed - Tony, knock those comments off now, the next time you make personal attacks like that you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I had this answer even before I checked out the discussion: spam, plenty of people don't like it. No I don't mean the tinned meat product but the electronic variety. You may not intended your message as spam, but it's not hard to see why people would see someone obviously trying to get people to !vote for their article as spamming, whether that's fair or not. And no, it doesn't matter if you're black, white or something else. Frankly, as me and others have said before, if the first thing you leap at when people disagree with you is racism this says more about you than anyone else. Heck even if the hatred of spam is irrational (I don't think it is), it's still not racism. I would add that while I didn't participate in the discussion at hand, I doubt I'm the only one who wouldn't even know your race were it not for the fact you keep making random accusations of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• There seems to be a real issue here with Tony launching ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with him. I'd hate to see him blocked again, but this business about calling people idiots and racists needs to stop now. Since the problems all seem to revolve around featured things, perhaps he needs to be banned from featured processes. I hope not, but it's starting to look that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Featured things" is a good way to put it, but a little simplistic, unfortunately. Tony is usually a good featured content writer. But in my experience - and we have unfortunately clashed numerous times - he reacts extremely poorly when he doesn't get his way. This often revolves around main page appearances, where this latest spat relates, but applies to pretty much any reviewed process. If he fails to amend his behaviour, we could look at a restriction from discussions related to content appearing on the main page - notably TFA and DYK - but I hope that really wouldn't be necessary. That being said, the disheartening thing about Tony's canvassing here is that it comes less than three weeks after he was called out for canvassing in relation to WP:FOUR. As to the core of this specific topic, I have always found that accusations of racism where none exist reflect far more negatively on the accuser than the accused. Resolute 01:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolute writes "Tony is usually a good featured content writer." This has not been true when writing about Whaam!. TTT readily concedes a lack of familiarity with visual art. This in and of itself is not a problem. But I think TTT expressed little in his own words on the points of contention at the two FACs on the painting Whaam!. This created a problematic situation. My interactions with TTT were complicated by his deference to others. If I am to constructively interact with another editor, they have to take a stance that is ultimately their own. This is obviously not a reason to block TTT. It is by way of explaining some of the problematic situations that got us to this point. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • The truly ironic thing is that most of the people Tony cries racist about have no clue whatsoever what race he is, don't care, and would never find out were it not for his deciding to play the race card. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the TFA discussion and don't see any evidence of T calling anyone a racist. NE Ent 02:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The diff was given above. The comment was reverted almost immediately afterwards, which is why looking at the current version does not help. The implication (not outright statement, Tony's too cautious for that) is there: he says "this kind of craziness" is to be taken as evidence of racism against Tony, and thus (indirectly stated) those causing "this kind of craziness" must be racists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Propose one month or indefinite community ban/block

Note: This section was inserted by the editor who signed below. It looks to have been accidentally removed by TTT during an edit conflict (here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It has become quite clear as of late the TTT cannot behave in a civil manner for the time being. As such I feel that they need some time out. After the ban is lifted there will be a 1 month topic ban from WP:FOUR and all other areas of the encyclopedia relating to the promotion of good articles, featured articles and DYK's broadly construed but not including constructive edits to any current GA, FA or article on DYK. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 7:13 am, Today (UTC+7)

• Not sure if I'd go for a month. Two days clearly was not enough (and no apology has been forthcoming), but I don't think we want to make the jump to one month just yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the ink isn't even dry on the last ANI thread NE Ent 02:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that we're here, despite that recent ANI, might be an argument in favor of a ban. Not saying it is, but seeing Tony on this page so frequently is troubling. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 02:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• This behaviour is clearly unacceptable, and I really don't understand why the last threads didn't already close with sanctions. But this type of behaviour – persistent, over years, despite multiple warnings, and evidently no sign of learning whatsoever – should not be met with temporary bans but with indef blocks. To be lifted if and when a credible assurance is given that the behaviour will not be repeated. I'm willing to impose such a block here and now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of an indef but it is quite clear that despite this behaviour they have been making positive contributions for years and as such I decided on just a one month siteban with a follow-up one month topic ban because they CAN still contribute positively but I still wanted to get the message across that their behaviour in this area is quite simply unacceptable. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 06:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a month; Support Future Perfect's indef as the better solution. This behaviour is so far over the line (and continuing, despite warnings and a two day block) that TTT, depite his excellent work in the past, has to show he gets it and is willing and able to reform. A clueful unblock request will provide that, and could come a lot sooner than the end of a month ~ up to him. Cheers, Lindsay 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't really oppose the will of the community; as such I am willing to Support an indef block if that is what the community decides should happen. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - despite his sterling content work Tony's problems with bad faith and refusing to listen are making him a net drain on the community. As this is a case where it cannot be assumed, based on past experience, that a set time will allow for the point to be made, indef is the correct option here - it allows for as much time as necessary, and could be lifted tomorrow if clue is acquired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Additional comment - If this thread does not result in action and TTT is bought to ANI again I will seriously consider taking this to arbcom. The fact that the thread above has not yet been closed shows that community is either unwilling or unable to deal with this recurring problem. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support anywhere between a month block or an indef, inclusive of both figures. This is an absolutely absurd set of actions by Tony, and I honestly think he's lost the ability to be constructive on Misplaced Pages, for whatever reason. He needs some time away from here to sort his head out, re-read Misplaced Pages's policies, and ensure that he can contribute without making up false and obscene allegations against editors he dislikes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've indef blocked Tony based on the comments above and his continual confrontational behaviour. I note that he previously ignored responding to the other racism blocks (sitting them out, then not responding to the administrative threads) so I think it is important to obtain a response this time, and an undertaking that he will avoid the chilling effect of unfounded accusations of racism. I am also sensitive to the fact that Tony may have evidence of actual racism so I have asked him to present the evidence to support this, which I would expect the community to consider. --Errant 09:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly, if anyone has been racist, and there's clear proof of it, then they should get a heavy sanction as well, because such behaviour is unacceptable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef It seems that those who opposed the the proposed topic ban from a few weeks ago wound up giving TTT enough WP:ROPE to get an indef. This should not be lifted until TTT shows that they understand what the problem is. MarnetteD | Talk 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block as minimum, support community ban As someone of mixed ethnicity, I abhor false use of the "race card" - once was more than enough; he's now a repeat offender ES&L 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block I wouldn't go so far as a community ban, at least not yet. But it's clear this has gone on long enough, and innocent editors have no reason to be attacked this way. KrakatoaKatie 18:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose both the 1-month block and the indef block. When things get this bad and this close to a virtual banning from the community, and keenly aware that they are only one hair away from the point of no return, offending -but productive- editors virtually always go thru a period of soul-searching and reality checks. I don't see that anyone here, other than tell TTT this and telling TTT that, and begging TTT for this and for that, I don't see that anyone here actually asked TTT if he would like to make an offer. Perhaps we should stop a moment and ask him. Perhaps we should hear him out. Maybe he is willing to make an offer for the community to consider, a proposal on how - given the current state of affairs - how he would deal with this if he was in our shoes. Perhaps he can proffer his own proposal of what he considers would be a fair deal; that is, what measures, actions, promises, etc., he would be willing to adhere to going forward to avoid further blocks. I am not proposing that the community needs to accept anything he proposes - I am simply saying let's first ask, then let's next wait, and then let's see. Perhaps he would be willing to participate in the process of determining and shaping his own fate. Mercy11 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm very much against a community ban; an unblock for a case like this should not depend on getting consensus for it after yet another AN/ANI vote in a few days. All TTT needs is a whack with a cluestick; that's not what bans are for. As soon as he understands what he's repeatedly doing wrong, any admin should be able to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, only one user has actually supported a community ban. I certainly, and strongly, oppose it at this time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's still worthwhile specifically mentioning that I oppose it (it's evidently at least on the table, based on the subthread title). It's sometimes too easy for these things to kind of morph into community bans by accident. I'd hate for that to happen. Frankly, I'm not sure what benefit keeping this thread open does; the indef block is made, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for a ban, and the next move is up to TTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes a community ban is not, and should not (IMO) happen. I do intend to stay on top of this issue and make sure this doesn't drift into de-facto banned territory. --Errant 20:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• It may be worthwhile just pointing out that at the time i commented yesterday, the subheader read "Propose one month community ban"; at some point after that (i haven't bothered looking when) it was changed to the current one, including a ban and a block. My comment, and perhaps others', was based on not thinking the community needed to act (ban), but that a single admin did (block) ~ as User:ErrantX did. There may well be others for whom a community action wasn't on the table. I appreciate Errant plan to stay on block with no drift. Cheers, Lindsay 06:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for whatever my comments might or might not be worth. That's a tortured argument for a ban or block of this length (" The implication (not outright statement, Tony's too cautious for that) is there: he says "this kind of craziness" is to be taken as evidence of racism against Tony, and thus (indirectly stated) those causing "this kind of craziness" must be racists.") Then another comment, "Certainly, if anyone has been racist, and there's clear proof of it, then they should get a heavy sanction as well, because such behaviour is unacceptable." So, racism requires "clear proof," but the tortured conclusion that "this kind of craziness" is "indirectly" calling someone a racist merits a permanent ban or block? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

• That is a bit tortured. Yes, accusations of racism require proof. But there is ample evidence Tony likes to use this sort of argument as a scatter gun to attack those who are arguing with him. It's a pattern that extends back from that comment to the previous AN/I and previous very explicit comments about racism. It's also worth noting that my block message to Tony also discusses Battleground conduct; the comment this AN/I is focused on (and many of those surrounding this TFA issue) are a clear jibe related to the previous issues :) All together, it is clear the community needs to hear something from Tony about the matte - however he has pretty much avoided discussing his behaviour with the perspective that it may be problematic. --Errant 20:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. My opinion: It seems that Tony is an excellent contributor of content on Misplaced Pages. This, content contribution, seems to me to be very low on the value scale on Misplaced Pages; but I think it should weigh higher, much higher, as that is the ultimate goal of Misplaced Pages. So, if the intention is to ban a long-time editor who contributes good articles and other stuff to Misplaced Pages, then it seems to me that a clear cut statement of the accusations against the editor could be written up. Such is not the case here. It's an incomprehensible accusation to an outsider. It seems taking the time to make sure the entire community, including those not directly involved with the dispute, can understand what is going on would show that the ban is in focus. This is a shotgun approach to a ban. That's my opinion. And as such, I think it is inappropriate and seems a little spiteful. And that means it does not show that the community is serious about what the problem is. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

• Yes that's a fair request, I'm kinda busy this evening but I will see if I can pull the history together over the next couple of days for those uninvolved. Tony is a prolific contributor, which is why I intend to pursue this matter to resolution - that resolution being a successful unblock. However, his history is littered with conflict with other valuable contributors. My observation has been that Tony takes many disagreements with him as a personal affront, and in several cases has called it racism. He holds an extremely high opinion of himself and his contribution which means he is often at odds with others. Take this TFA issue; he's right he has an entry that has more points, and is probably more suited to the day in question. But the manner in which he pursued having it appear that day was fairly aggressive, and understandably upset the individual whose other articles was previously going to feature that day. He simply didn't empathise. Conversely I wonder what would have happened had he been in the position of Schro Cat? My observation of his past behaviour is that he would have been similarly annoyed, and rightly so. The core problem here is not just the vacuous accusations of racism, but the ongoing attitude he displays with other editors. Getting him to reflect on that seems an uphill struggle. Misplaced Pages is better with Tony's contributions, but I suspect he might need to see that Misplaced Pages can cope entirely without his contribution, which may bring the perspective he needs to see that everyone's contributions here are valuable and should be treated respectfully. --Errant 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for considering what I said and replying to it rather than around it. Although you seem to be doing so already, would you consider that trying to make someone see something that can't be clearly said is futile. I think you have just said that you will do that, and I appreciate it. To me, though, treating Tony the way he has been treated is belittling him personally, and therefore his contributions, and I suspect it bothers him. He may consider it racism that he is relegated to child because, while it may not be the intention, in the United States, this is an historical manifestation of racism towards blacks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

• AfadsBad, may I note that I did not support the indef block, so quoting me as a "reason for the block" is rather dishonest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I quoted your comment because it appeared to be a forceful remark, with special emphasis, about Tony's actions, calling for sanctions against him. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

• So paraphrasing another editor's comments to make them more explicit is forceful? Also, that comment is not a "call for sanctions"; the comment about five indents down is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block or ban. I am very troubled by the way all of this has escalated and wish people would find a more decorous way of settling these matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block, oppose ban TTT needs to explain what he meant by "#learnsomemanners #evenifthemessangerisblack", since as I (and others) read it, the message he was sending out was that people were treating unfairly because of his race. That sort of accusation, however implicit, is not compatible with the collaborative nature of working together on Misplaced Pages. As for finding a more decorous way to settle such matters, TTT had no need to insert such an off-topic comment into a closed discussion on the TFAR page in the first place. If TTT has evidence that people have behaved in a racist manner towards him, then (as has been said already) he should present that. But TTT's apparent chain of logic (someone has been rude to me + this is my skin colour = they have been rude to me because of my skin colour) isn't going to work, I wouldn't have thought. TTT has a lot to offer Misplaced Pages with his hard work and writing abilities, but his current approach isn't healthy. Bencherlite 23:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think The block until this gets dealt with is reasonable and good though I strongly oppose a ban or a fixed duration block at this point. He's a strong content creator and a huge positive for Misplaced Pages. His recent behavior seems a bit erratic and certainly uncollegial. I hope that something can be worked out here. Does anyone know him outside of Misplaced Pages? Now might be a good time to reach out. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lengthy block. Oppose ban. If actually directing racial epithets at other editors ends up as only a six-day block with stronger sanctions lifted without consensus or even a valid unblock request, then proportionality and minimal decency would call for much more limited sanctions here -- like 24 hours, if not merely time served. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 24 hours? Tony was blocked for the same thing not even two weeks ago for 48. 24 hours is not exactly the way blocks work. I'd say at least a week, maybe two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block, oppose ban – We're back here again - before the previous ANI had even been closed! We can't continue this this - unfounded implications/accusations of racism can do a lot of damage in a collaborative environment. We need an indication that Tony acknowledges this, and that he won't continue making these unfounded remarks, otherwise we'll be back here again very soon, and that's not productive. – Shudde 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• And a further note, Tony was blocked for the same thing a year ago for 48hrs. I had proposed an extension to a 1 week block last time, which had gained traction but by the time it was anywhere near closing, his block had expired and enforcing the consensus would have been punitive. At the very minimum this should be a 1 month block though I also support the "indef until Tony understands that randomly accusing everyone who disagrees with him as being racist" is just not on. Actually, on his userpage at the very bottom there is a reference to him being Panamanian, or at the least Central American. Yes, Central Americans are often the targets of racism from further north, but given the variety of cultures that are represented here, especially those that have minimal contact or exposure to Central American cultures, accusing everyone who disagrees with him of racism is histrionic to the point of absurdity. Blackmane (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Hullaballoo; I'm not in favour of a timed block here because that is punitive. What's important is that the community wants Tony to explain his actions and, if they are as they appear, to undertake not to do it again. Tony has, as he has explained on his talk page, a tendency just to sit out timed blocks and cool off - so they do not have the desired effect and hence are merely punitive. This is the reason for placing no limit on the block, as soon as Tony responds to the communities questions then he can be unblocked - which I hope will be today. I for one am setting the bar for unblocking very low, at least at this early stage. His response to this whole issue has been somewhat obscure (it so far reads off as feigning ignorance, and he is a smart guy so I don't buy that for a second) but once he actively addresses the question the community is posing ("why are you directing accusations of racism at people?") he should be unblocked. A timed block just means we're back here again at some point in the future, and he might be less lucky with the patience of the community next time. --Errant 10:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's doubtful its ignorance but a failure to communicate. Tony apparently sees some actions/arguments which he finds illogical and against his position to have a "seeming" explanation partly in racism, ala Obama's recent comments about reactions to black men. Yes, he needs to hold his tongue, until he has better proof -- we all from time to time think things about others to "explain" their "illogical" arguments but we don't say them all, unless we can prove that to neutral parties in the proper forum. So how about a forum restriction for Tony on such claims to formal DR, ANI, or AN?

User:MadmanBot is malfunctioning

Parable of the Light of Allah

there is no duplicate writing on this page yet the bot is having the trouble. it says it copied from that site but now the article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.112.124 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In the box at the top of the article it says: "If MadmanBot is in error: Simply note so on this article's discussion page.", so that's what you need to do. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No malfunctioning. Article has several matching phrases. --Vigyani_talk 12:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should not simply copy and paste from other websites as you seem to have done here (the text in the body of the article can be found on various websites and there is a particularly close match here). We might now need to do a great deal of rollback and deletion of your recent contributions as they appear to breach the law of copyright and the policies of Misplaced Pages. NebY (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

History merge needed

Could an administrator please have a look at the histories of Blackout (drug-related amnesia) and Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia) and perform a history merge if necessary? It appears to me as if there was a cut and paste move. Thanks. 173.62.242.128 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks for the heads up.--v/r - TP 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies - personal attacks & NOTHERE

I blocked ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) yesterdays for a 3RR violation . The user removed the block notice , then proceeded to make a number of personal attacks on his user talk page , before blanking most of his talk page . Given this user's extensive block log, and the indication that they seem to be uninterested in collaboratively editing Misplaced Pages (see edit summaries), I wonder if more long-term action could be taken? ItsZippy 14:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. I'm looking at a range of options between Arbcom sanctions (if I can find one) to a week for personal attacks or a indefinite for having a real clear issues with polarization which may be incompatible with Misplaced Pages editing.--v/r - TP

Alright, so I've had a look and here are my thoughts. As far as future uninvolved administrators coming in after me, feel free to see and handle it another way. Your block was certainly justified, I might have even done a week for some of the personal attacks in edit summaries and on the talk page of the article. However, I'm not going to change your original decision, it was within discretion. Now, as for the events after wards, I think ThinkEnemies comments are well within the personal attacks arena and I think this comment shows a particularly combative POV that isn't neccessarily in line with Misplaced Pages's goals. I'm not saying that anti-LGBT editors are not allowed to edit, I'm saying that this editor can't edit without their POV influencing them beyond reasonable boundaries. However, they retracted the comments almost 8 hours later (I'm assuming after sleeping on it) which seems to show me that they've calmed down. We've let things go before when editors calm down and the point of blocks is to prevent disruption. An editor who has calmed down can reasonable be assumed to have regained control of their composure. So I'm going to say we shouldn't block for that. Then the question comes about topic bans. They were mentioned in the recent Tea Party case but I wasn't able to connect RealClearPolitics with the tea party except for being politically right. I think that that's an overly broad view which would be a single step away from including all US politics (and one more step to international politics). If Arbcom wanted to include all US politics or all conservative politics in the discretionary sanctions, they would have. So...I guess my answer here is no action. Sorry ItsZippy, I agree with you that he's been disruptive in the last 24 hours but I think he's calmed down.--v/r - TP 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Thinkenemies shoud be asked to elaborate on this comment, which appears to be an indication of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — goethean 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it seems to be an outburst (from getting blocked) that he's since retracted and calmed down about. I've imagined several times getting blocked for my own outbursts and I believe that I'd have a similar reaction to them. The retraction, 8 hours later, is the indication that the feelings were a strong emotive reaction and not the editor's actual rational feelings and I'd say that the 24 hour block has already served it's role in being preventative due to the evidence that the user has calmed down.--v/r - TP 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to bring this here last night, but was too tired/lazy. If one really looks into this issue, you will find this is not the first(or 2nd, 3rd, 4th) time Thinkenemies has displayed this type of behavior. If one looks at the users block log the edit warring, personal attacks and harassment are not new. In fact this editor was indeffed because of sock puppetry, but seemed to give User:Deskana an explanation that the blocking admin bought. But now the same type of behavior exhibited in the sock puppet case(in which TE denied being those puppets) is being exhibited again. Such as changing the diffs in the EW case filed last night, twice(edit summary = "Yea baby"). Copy and pasting my edit warring warning I gave TW on my user page with the edit summary of "Have fun ya". This is definitely the same behavior of the sock puppets TE denied being. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I won't try to unilaterally overrule Tom's call here, but I view people who use racial or sexuality-based epithets significantly differently from people who use rude words. If I call you a "butthead", or worse, it's because I've lost my temper and am trying to lash out and hurt you. If I call you a "faggot", it's because I'm fundamentally incapable of collaboratively editing with people who don't think like me; that isn't an attempt to hurt ItsZippy's feelings, it's evidence that ThinkEnemies needs to wander over to Conservapedia.

I would be inclined to block indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't feel overruled, I just didn't feel certain enough about my opinion to push the buttons. I see your point and agree with it, I said as much when I said "shows a particularly combative POV that isn't neccessarily in line with Misplaced Pages's goals." I wasn't aware of the things DD2K had brought up either. I sort of periscoped in on this particular issue and didn't look to see if it's happened before. I just think the user was on a rage and has calmed down since then. That's not a defense of this user, it's only an interpretation on the applicability of our blocking policy.--v/r - TP 16:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies now says:

Glancing at that thread appears to show a personal attack against me (unsubstantiated sock puppetry claims), but I'm not offended as some blowback should be expected after my embarrassing outburst.

— goethean 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Being that I'm still blocked, there's not much I can do to contribute. Glancing at that thread appears to show a personal attack against me (unsubstantiated sock puppetry claims), but I'm not offended as some blowback should be expected after my embarrassing outburst. All I can offer is heartfelt apologies. Oh, and I have no desire to edit conservapedia, which I always thought was a liberal troll site. Maybe it's just a troll site, period. Not really my cup of tea, either way. †TE†Talk 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've extended this block to indefinite. Really, this is a complete no-brainer, as Floquenbeam outlined above. There's just no place here for people who call other editors "faggots", at least not so long as I have administrative permissions. If civility (as distinct from WP:CIVILity) means anything at all, it means that this kind of language isn't acceptable here. Everyone gets mad, and lots of people resort to name-calling. But there's a clear difference between generic terms of abuse and specifically racist or homophobic language which denotes contempt for entire classes of people. Coming as it does on top of a long history by this editor of tendentious editing, edit-warring, talk-page abuse, and edit-warring, the right answer seems fairly obvious. MastCell  18:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Good block, MastCell. Others may want to read TE's replies , attacking MastCell. Paraphrasing what someone (I forgot who) wrote in an AE appeal, this looks like a draconian measure that turns out entirely justified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For once I seemed to have missed all the fun instead of being in the middle of it. For what it's worth, were I not something of an involved party in this matter, I would have made the same block. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's interesting to note that the sockpuppets (which apparently were blamed on his little brother or something like that) also had a homophobic tone: "Sodomite", "I dropped the soap", etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You can cross another conservative editor off your list, MastCell—ThinkEnemies appears to have "retired" from Misplaced Pages. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think I should have handled the situation differently, I'm open to feedback. That's one purpose of this noticeboard. MastCell  05:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• They've retired after being blocked indefinitely. That's just a lame attempt at a protest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Volksjäger162

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

This user is doing edit warring, original research and is abolutely not able to reach a consensus. Look at Georgian alphabet: Revision history and Talk:Georgian alphabet. The article is now protected, soon after Volksjägers last edit.
P.S. If someone has time and is interested in the subject, please help to improve this article. At the moment it looks awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Хаченци (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go here -> Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring - KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This does not looks awful and I am not edit warring. Your last edit was Weasel. Writing "Widely believed" does not looks very nice, as you think it does. It was protected because of your last edit, which is weasel as I already said. You kept using CAPS in some words in talk page, then you kept calling Georgian point nationalistic. You are one, which does not reaches consensus. You are also one who did not reply talk page on Armenian alphabet after I brought proof, so if I edit something you will say consensus was not achieved. Thats your tactic. Everyone knows it. Check your history as well. Do I have Edit warring history or you? I have clean history and will have, because I know WP rules. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Volksjäger162, would you care to tell us the name of the account you used while you were learning the rules? You appear to have only been editing as Volksjäger162 for three days, but seem to know a great deal about the inner workings of Misplaced Pages... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP Rules are simple and nice. If you want, you can read them. Here is other way as well, to read before you register. I always read rules, requirements, before I join community. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So you have never heard of Obitauri (talk · contribs), and the fact you've been pulled up on ANI for edit warring in the same topic area three days after that editor was indeffed is just one big co-incidence, right? Ritchie333 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know already how to talk to this user. All he is suggesting is doing original research, writing not the scholar view but the data used by scholars and allow the reader to choose the right one. reader is not a scholar, neither we are. We can not use what is wrong and what is right. Currently in the article it is mentioned in large sections why the foreign scholars think GA was created in 5c and why Georgian scholars think it existed before. Such statements have nothing to do in the article. One can create a new one, called "The problem of origin of GA" and write everything there, if its so necessary. Хаченци (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Benobikenobi

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

A new account, edit-warring over Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Has been informed on User talk:Benobikenobi that the articles are under WP:1RR restrictions, and has been repeatedly told that their edits are against policy, but evidently out to prove a point: "I don't care what other editors or moderators have to say on the matter! If they want to block me fine". I suggest that an admin obliges... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Niemti

Hey, a couple of days ago I encountered this user, and it's been a bit of an unseen battle getting this far.

The article in question is Brandish (game); so far he's reverted some clerical edits I've made--without explanation except taunts--and actually stole some of the changes for his own edit rushes; he's refused to reply after asking him about it on both his talk page and on the article talk page, except for more taunts on the latter; and he's being rude in general, with phrases like "I'm stealing your edits and selling them on black market". I'm afraid to even touch the article anymore, because I know he's going to revert, steal whatever he wants to, and make another rush of edits that go out of their way to not solve certain clerical issues.

While I admit that removing the tags might not have been the best thing to do, I felt that the article didn't need them anymore; he took that as a sign that he should declare ownership against all comers, demand information out of me (that he seems to know more of), and act how I've described. I appreciate that he is adding to the article, but he claims that he only suddenly cared and at my expense. Honestly, it's kinda hard to care about good faith when things like this happen.

Thanks for reading. Despatche (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's consistent with Niemti's behavior at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples where he was on the minority side of two separate RfCs and consensus. He exhibited battleground behavior, some not hearing, and was generally not nice to be around. See previous ANI, his blocks-current name, his blocks-old name, RfC/U for past civility issues. GregJackP Boomer! 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

as a off topic comment, despite his claims, " I know he's going to ... steal whatever he wants to, "; everything you contribute to Misplaced Pages you are contributing under a "free use" license and so, he cannot really "steal" anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant to mention that too, but forgot. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly guys. We contribute under an "attribution-only" license, not a free license. So it is possible to "steal" in the sense of using material without giving attribution.--v/r - TP 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

true, but it seems likely that Niemti is merely being a smart-ass taunting rather than actually utilizing content in an off Wiki site without attribution. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be off-site. Copying another editor's contributions from one page to another without attribution is also disallowed. However, in this case it seems Niemti appears to be reverting Despatche's edits and then readding some of the work later - this is acceptable, as the attribution is in the article history. However, the snarky replies on the talk page by Niemti are completely unnecessary. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the recent edit history of Brandish (game), it has been significantly improved, thanks to everyone who contributed. "I'm stealing your edits and selling them on black market" was obviously a joke. Other than that, I do not see any diffs above showing recent and ongoing problems. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Niemeti consistently refuses to leave edit comments or get involved in discussions about his edits. Generally however their edits are useful and helpful edits to have which I suspect is why they are still editing on Misplaced Pages though they do have a tendency to rub other editors the wrong way. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

He reverts every edit I make and steals the bits he likes for his own edits, while completely preventing me from editing the page at all, without any explanation for any of it except taunts... that is well beyond "rude", and is unacceptable by any margin. He is so far detached from any code of conduct that, again, I'm legitimately surprised he hasn't been deleted from reality a long time ago (I'm not even attacking the guy with this statement). That he's actually contributing to the article is only making this situation a hundred times worse. Despatche (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Werieth and his bullying reverts.

Ever since I got on Misplaced Pages, User:Werieth has been a constant source of trouble for me. He goes around passing judgements on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and removes images without any warning, (talk-page) consensus and even pointing out any specific violation of the Misplaced Pages:NFCC#Policy guidelines.

As one example, he removed File: Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg and File:Abdus salam.gif from the page Pakistani people. These images were being used as Visual Depiction of deceased personalities in an image array on page Pakistani people. In these 10 Misplaced Pages:NFCC#Policy guidelines, there is no guideline that prohibits the use of a WP:NFC file on more than one places on English Misplaced Pages.

Such self-designated policemen of Misplaced Pages only scare the newcomers off with their edits. I would like to see a senior editor/administrator stepping in and resolving this particular case, and also take action against User:Werieth for constant violations of Misplaced Pages:BRD. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. Usage of these files are limited to the article about the individual. Werieth (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Again Werieth? You trouble-maker you. I've had my own personal dealings with Werieth and can assure you Fasi100 that if you assumed a little good faith, you would find that there is no personal opinion being had at the hand of Werieth. He uses WP:AWB for most of his WP:NFCC cleanup. My understanding of it is, although you are correct that it is not limited to one article per image, each article must have a valid claim of fair use on the file description page. It doesn't appear that the files you have listed here comply with that requirement. Technical 13 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Werieth on which criteria is in violation. I think #1 and #8 are violated. Fasi100, you're not being targeted. It's that you lack a good understanding of WP:NFCC and Werieth hasn't bothered to educate you. Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image and no free equivalent is available. Basically this: You added these images to articles about Pakistani people. However, in the subject of Pakistani people, there are free images available or that can be produced without using non-free images. That's why we cannot use the non-free images on those articles.--v/r - TP 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I'm gathering from all of these complaints popping up, is that Werieth could probably use a little more tact/patience/detail when explaining this to people though. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong in his interpretation of the concept itself, its pretty obviously he's not communicating well with others. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I am trying to communicate it but if you take a look at the cases you will see that users have a tendency to not listen. I explain the issue to anyone who has a question, however most users refuse to listen, dont explain themselves and try to ignore a policy that they dont understand. Werieth (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@T13 (edit conflict)Nevertheless, Werieth does seem to upset an awful lot of people, T13. I've also seen respected editors give him very good advice on how he might temper his approach to do that less. The alpha and the omega of it seems to be that he rubs people up the wrong way by assuming a condescending attitude, and removing files repeatedly rather than discussing. If you start from the position that you may not always be correct, you're less likely to rub people up the wrong way like this. Plenty of people involved in NFCC enforcement or interested in copyright issues don't end up dragged here every other day. Eventually someone may begin to think there's no smoke without fire. It's a dirty job, but there are, and have been suggested, less confrontational and bot-like ways of doing it. We've seen all this before, before, I think, you were around, with other users, and it seldom ends well. Just saying. Begoon  18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Begoon I doubt there are that many people actually doing NFCC on a large scale, most of the users who have done this have been insulted and attacked to the point where they just say NFCC isnt work the headache to enforce. Werieth (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need more people doing it on a small to medium scale, like I do, and less robots. I do my bit - check my contribs - here and at Commons - though I'd only address a few images a day on average, because I'm not chasing some dream of cleaning it all up in a couple of months - but I don't find the world at my throat every day. You tend to alienate people, like me, who could be on your side, with your sub-par approach to people. Sorry, but it's true. Less robotic, more interpersonal, and you'll achieve more, in my opinion. But different strokes, I guess. You like the 2 edits a minute and sod the consequences approach. I don't - I've seen where it ends - and I suspect you have too. Don't take any of this personally - it's not meant that way. Just voicing my thoughts. Begoon  18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is getting people involved in NFC enforcement is extremely difficult, yes you review your own actions, but there are a lot of users who dont. I have been focused on the bigger cases and thats still a handful. If there was a way we could get more users involved Im all for that, however I doubt you will see much traction for that project. Werieth (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a culture thing. You lead by example. If people see respected users who help them doing the right thing, many of them will try to emulate that - especially if they respect and understand why. It takes time, and it builds slowly. You can't do it with xls files, AWB and bots, or by being seen as the bad cop who nobody wants to emulate. You do it by getting amongst your colleagues and yes, the newbies too, and showing them that acting responsibly can be rewarding. Too slow for some tastes - too slow for yours, probably, but I'd rather still be here chipping away and doing my bit than encouraging the culture divide I abhor and reinforcing the us vs them crap.

You start by getting people to actually look at the images they come across every day. I'm involved with the graphics lab, and I've helped a few users there realise that copyright etc. is ok to do, and look at. I have to say this, though, if you really want to recruit people, that's a fruitful area and you've not done real well there on a couple of occasions. Those are the knowledgeable guys who could help. But knowledgeable guys don't like having the odds shouted at them. They've seen it all before too.

The cleanest towns I've seen (apart from Singapore - notable exception), didn't do it by having litter police - they did it by making the inhabitants ashamed to drop litter because they were letting their townsfolk down, and their friends would "tut" at them. Culture thing. Begoon  18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I only use AWB for NFCC#9 sweeps. If you have ideas how to get people to change their behavior I am willing to listen. However Most of the time ideas are great, but just dont pan out when implemented. Werieth (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to chat sometime soon - bit late here now. Thanks for listening to all that so reasonably. I went on a bit. I do that. Begoon  19:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the justification for having the photo-box argue in favor of the including of the non-free content? In the context of an article on Pakistani people the presence of a photo-box containing images of exceptionally accomplished Pakistani people significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. A link to the article on the individual could do the same thing. In a table of 16 images why do you need two non-free files? how is not including those two files detrimental to understanding the subject of Pakistani people and why cant you just substitute two other images that are free into that collage? Werieth (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of free images available to suit the purpose of illustrating Pakistani people, as evidenced by the ones already there. Any nonfree would violate NFCC#1 (and likely NFCC#8), so they would be disallowed. Seraphimblade 18:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can see why Werieth comes off often with a slightly defensive tone. The number of complaints based on confusion and a lack of understanding of the laws that have been filtered through his talk page would make anyone defensive in my opinion. Heck, I believe my first interaction with him were along the lines of "WTF are you doing????" You should read some of the stuff that has gone across his talk page, it is quite comical from my perspective. What I'm wondering is why Fasi100 felt it was okay to start this thread and fail to notify Werieth of it. Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Its an attempt to get me blocked by someone who has almost no understanding of WP:NFCC, and doesnt care to learn about it. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "bullying" but I think there is highhandedness in quoting policies such as we are discussing. At least three sections of policy are invoked in this thread: WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8. Some of those sections of policy are anything but clearcut. They require a dollop of interpretation. This in turn can require a lengthier discussion than the simple citing of policy numbers. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And if you check the article talk page or mine there isnt a single question about it except for the post here. I would have explained in detail if clarification was requested. Werieth (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis says "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image…" Where is that found in policy? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That has resulted from multiple discussions, spanning FFD, NFCR, and WT:NFC. Which has come to the general rule (note I said general as there are a few exceptions) that such usage violates NFCC#3 and 8 in almost every case (and often #1 as it is displayed in another article). Can you please explain how not having File: Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg in the infobox is detrimental to the understanding of the article? Especially when all you need to do to see that picture is click one link? Werieth (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI point 6, is one reference to this too. Werieth (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The frustrating thing about all of this is that you can't state in unambiguous terms that policy says something unless policy actually says that. I think the reality is that you, or in this case TParis, are engaging in interpretation. Policy language is perfectly capable of articulating the thought that "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image". If as you say, "there are a few exceptions" then language in policy can allude to and allow for exceptions under a limited number of circumstances. The policy language is not up to par. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It results from WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage. WP:NFC isnt policy but rather an explanation of WP:NFCC which's wording isnt exact, because of how non-free media is used. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PS with art work there are cases where it can be used in other articles. However in this case it fails #8, 3 & 1. Getting a one size fits all exact wording is almost impossible, due to unforeseen edge cases. Werieth (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You say "That has resulted from multiple discussions, spanning FFD, NFCR, and WT:NFC." The results of "multiple discussions" are not available to the average editor. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see only one edit by Werieth to Pakistani people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the use of the non-free images was clearly in violation of policy: there existed neither discussion of the images, nor non-free use rationales for their inclusion in that article. This example shows correct enforcement of Misplaced Pages policy, and does not justify a block. Disputes about non-free content are best taken to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review. —rybec 00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Werieth should be blocked. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone's really pushing for a block. But there's quite a few people who share the same sentiments here that Werieth should take into consideration. The way you personally explain the policy, and deal with others, could use some "softening". You need to be less brisk and agitated that not everyone is as invested or understanding as you are. Well, you don't need to, but rather, if you don't change, you're just going to keep finding yourself wasting time arguing on talk pages and ANI time and time again, which, from what I've gathered from watching others, typically leads to burnout due to frustration, or blocks due to escalation in the arguing. No Admin action warranted here, just Werieth needing to reflect how he wants to spend his time here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• The last time I commented about this editor I said I was pretty sure the community had to deal with him again, so I am not surprised at all to see two complaints about Werieth's conduct on this page. At the time of my dispute, specific cases aside, he was strongly suggested to change his behaviour by a number of experienced editors including three different administrators (Dianaa, Kww and Masem) but here we go again. I cuncur (once again) to the above suggestions to Wer. for changing his conduct, but while I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it is just a question of time that this editor will be topic banned/blocked or something similar (even if surely not for the current case here). Cavarrone 08:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has also been edit warring over the use of File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG. This was judged to not be usable in many articles as a result of a discussion he or she both started and closed at Misplaced Pages:NFCR (which is a dubious practice by itself), but this wasn't widely advertised. Their original removal edit summaries didn't link to the discussion and simply stated "Commenting out use(s) of file "File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG": Per WP:NFCR" (examples, , ). When Anotherclown (talk · contribs) reverted this on the not-unreasonable grounds that such generically-worded changes were unclear Werieth reverted them again with the equally unhelpful edit summary of "Commenting out use(s) of file "File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG": per NFCR closure, these uses do not meet NFCC " (examples , ). Instead of attempting to explain the situation to Anotherclown (who is an editor in excellent standing) Werieth simply hit them with a generic and not entirely relevant warning template . I don't know whether this was calculated rudeness or not, but this kind of rude conduct is entirely unhelpful. A polite note to Anotherclown would have worked wonders here, but Werieth basically dragged out and escalated the situation through a lack of communication. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

KaraStepItUpNow uses external websites to attack Misplaced Pages editors

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

KaraStepItUpNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has embarked on a multi-article campaign on Misplaced Pages linking on the article talkpages to external websites where s/he attacks Misplaced Pages editors, including myself, Drmies and Dreadstar. Here is one link to the site under the title Misplaced Pages's Kpop Nemesis. The user is obviously a sock evading their block as well. Δρ.Κ.  23:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I opened a new SPI at: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer. Δρ.Κ.  00:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of their sockpuppet status, they're obviously WP:Not here, so I have indef blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's nice to be famous, Dr. K. This whole K-pop thing is an uphill battle waged by no more than half a dozen people on this side and, on the other, a well-oiled machine of editors, socks, meats, and PR puppets, that's clear. Articles are churned out by the dozen, all with the same layout and formatting, and all basically just repeat the PR strategies by SM Entertainment and others. Maybe you and I should start the K-pop Wikiproject and lay down the law. Also, thank you Diannaa. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• LOL Doc. I guess that's one way of looking at fame. As far as creating a wikiproject dedicated to controlling the quality of K-pop information I fully support the idea. Whenever you have the time just drop me a line. I would also like to express my thanks to Diana for her quick resolution of this case. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  01:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say, I'm a bit flattered, being praised for my "biased, leftist, and anti-consumerism philosophy". Problem with a Wikiproject is that it attracts the fans as well, and there's the rub. They seriously outnumber us, Dr. K. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I deal with leftist Greek issues too according to the sock. What can I say. In any case, you are right that the fans seriously outnumber us. And that's not counting their socks of course. Δρ.Κ.  02:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:117Avenue

This editor is engaging in personal attacks and using disruptive editing tactics (multiple reverts and frivolous deletion nominations ) in an apparent attempt to control the article Edmonton Light Rail Transit and related pages (Capital Line Template:Capital Line Template:Metro Line Metro Line Valley Line (ETS) Template:Valley Line (ETS) Template:ETS LRT route Template:ETS LRT future).
He has been warned about this kind of activity before (and he doesn't even make accurate accusations: I haven't added any lists or navboxes). Useddenim (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - FYI, the first diff provided is not a 117Avenue edit. It is an edit made by Secondarywaltz. I see no attack in the second diff. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim has made many controversial edits, and hasn't clearly explained his intentions in discussions, and garnered consensus. The second diff Useddenim provided was not intended to be an attack, but a plea to end the template writing, and explain his intentions. This is the first time I have seen him say that he thinks he isn't adding lists or navboxes. In the numerous discussions I have tried to explain what he, and User:Gingeroscar, are doing is duplicating existing content, and creating redundant lists and templates, Useddenim hasn't done much to explain the opposite. Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. Up to a month ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times, and now we have five. I have opened up a discussion on the use of Template:ETS LRT future, Useddenim has yet to explain his intentions. Every edit of Useddenim's I have reverted is accommodated with an explanation. The deletion nominations are not frivolous, I did not see another option (trying to avoid coming here) for Useddenim's edits without consensus. I edited Valley line in accordance with MOS:DAB, and explained this in my edit summaries, and on my talk, Useddenim has since called it a disruptive editing tactic. I do not own Edmonton Light Rail Transit, User:Thankyoubaby and User:Secondarywaltz have also indicated that it is unnecessary to create more templates or articles, or expand the existing ones with future information. If Useddenim means Valley Line Edmonton LRT with "Valley Line (ETS)", my comments on that deletion can be found here. The conclusion I have come to, about Useddenim, is that he is writing templates, and adding future lines and stations, because he can, but he hasn't taken the time to see is these additions are really needed, or what the regular editors of the related articles thinks about it. 117Avenue (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen and the editors that have taken to personal attacks to prove a point

Wow. I am extremely disheartened by what has transpired on wikipedia. Not that I expect any resolution, because having my privileges revoked for confronting irresponsible editing seems to be a systemic problem, but the culture on this site needs to change. I cannot waste my breath any more other than to show you the latest response by Rjensen, who I am reporting for Personal Attacks and using personal opinions about an industry to cloud his dealings with me. You can find the original transcript on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rjensen#Re:_Propaganda Now, Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed this complaint without explaining to me how the issue is to be resolved, or why it was removed. This individual has blocked me before, I should point out.70.73.141.146 (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I am now reporting this individual as well, for inappropriate removal of content, and without any effort to try to resolve the conflict. I would love to inform this individual, but their talk page is protected, so I cannot. Something tells me her or she will remove this complaint again, however.70.73.141.146 (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"I have come on here one more time, peacefully, to try to engage you in meaningful conversation. If you do not respond, this is fine, so please don't consider this an attack on you personally, etc. I need to understand why you think that propaganda can be limited to political and military uses. Propaganda can be used by an industry. When I looked back at your edits, I noted you claimed that my inclusion of the tanning industry and tobacco industry was to garner attention for "a product is bad for people." Mr. Jensen, I do not have to think anything, as this is not an assertion, it is a fact. When an industry pays other organizations to publish material that is misleading and untruthful to serve their purpose, is this not propaganda? If you can provide further resources to help me understand what propaganda is, then I will be happy to read them, and then maybe I can see why you refuse to include the propaganda imposed by the tanning industry. If you cannot, then I fear that the individual entrusted with "safeguarding" the integrity of such an important page has not done their due dilligence before dismissing the careful work of others. This is all I ask, and I believe it is reasonable for me to do so, considering the fact that you took this to the point of banning me from contributing to wikipedia.70.73.141.146 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

       you don't understand propaganda. You use the word to denounce advertising for products you consider harmful. You should read up on "propaganda" for its many meaning s and uses. I think your efforts at Misplaced Pages are in fact propaganda, an irony you need to appreciate. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

...."::you don't understand propaganda." That is a loaded statement if I ever read one. I have read up on the term propaganda... and my readings are not simply limited to this website, which I feel is narrow in its scope. I have been on a program that toured the death camps of Poland and studied the use of propaganda in Nazi Germany. I am currently awaiting a response from a PhD who has lectured and studied the use of propraganda in the media/industry, and it is with respect to our point of contention here... I have made an attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue, and you response above clearly shows you cannot or will not make an effort to present factual arguments to prove such a comment.

"You use the word to denounce advertising for products you consider harmful." I am not denouncing advertising for products I consider harmful, and this is what you need to understand, because I have stated this on multiple occasions in many different ways. This statement you have just made is a personal attack. Additionally, it is incorrect. I don't consider the product to be harmful. It is harmful. This is not an opinion, but a restating of facts by the IARC/WHO, and health organizations worldwide, based on the overwhelming body of evidence that is available. If it were simply an opinion, I can understand why you could be frustrated. But the irony, Mr. Jensen, is that the fact that you and others believe that this is simply an opinion is possibly the result of hearing or reading propaganda used by those in the tanning industry to cloud the picture. Tanning bed exposure is strongly associated with skin cancer, among other health risks (please take the time, I urge you, to read any or all of the references I quoted in my submission, all from established medical journals). The industry claims that these risks are not existent or are insignificant, says that UV exposure is more controlled in a tanning bed (not proven whatsoever), and claims health benefits of tanning bed use that are either unproven (e.g. cancer prevention, "base tan"), exaggerated, and can be achieved through safer means (e.g. Vitamin D exposure).

So please enlighten me, Mr Jensen, as to what propaganda is? Is propaganda not "a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument?". That's the definition on the wiki page, right? I am sure you have head of a systematic review - that is when an established researcher evaluates all of the evidence for and against an exposure, and concludes if the body of evidence favours a hypothesis. It is the most balanced and unbiased way to assess an intervention or exposure. Well, that's what I use, and that's what the World Health Organization used, when they came to an unbiased conclusion that UV exposure from tanning beds (as well as the sun) is a carcinogen, in the same class as cigarettes. In my submission, I think I clearly showed that there are many in the tanning industry and their associated organizations who have reported only the small studies that show their point of view, but neglect to mention the overwhelming amount of evidence that goes against their points, including the systematic reviews I mention. Is this not the same as "presenting one side of an argument" to "influence the attitude of the community"? Or, is it that, as you say, I just "don't understand propaganda"?

I have to say it yet again to you, because I think this is such an important point that I have to drive home - this is not my "opinion". 1) Tanning beds cause more harm than good, fact. 2) Tanning industry sites present the good (which is partly true) and negate the bad (partly false), and this is also a fact. If you can find me a tanning industry association that clearly presents a balanced view, you show it to me because this would run counter to the principle of "good business" - its impossible for an industry that causes harm to remove a conflict of interest when weighing evidence for or against their product, and the result is advertising that is propaganda. 3) The industry has used scapegoats/diversion tactics (e.g. suggesting that Cancer Society and Neutrogena are connected in an elaborate scheme to sell skin products through fear mongering, stating that the government is taking responsibility away from parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, blaming other tanning salons for unregulated exposure, etc.). If you put 1+2+3 together, I honestly don't know how you can tell me that me stating that this is propaganda is anything other than a fact.

"I think your efforts at Misplaced Pages are in fact propaganda, an irony you need to appreciate." This is an easily reportable personal attack. I am an MD and a FRCPC, and I have no interest in engaging in my own propraganda. This would be against an ethical code that we as physicians subscribe to, and the suggestion that I am compromising such a code is both laughable and troubling to see by an editor of this site. Personally (please don't mistake this for propaganda), I don't think you should be editing this page any more if you are going to be resorting to personal attacks, rather than facts, to prove your case. Thank you for providing me with evidence to support my own case. You can try and continue the same tact you have employed, and you have every right to be mad at me for earlier aggressive tactics that I have used, but I would have expected more from you after you reported me for similar behaviour. Just because you have power to remove my posts does not make you correct, and I have still yet to hear a shred of evidence from you that refutes any of my original points. I hope that you try, and then we can engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than veiled attempts at name calling. 70.73.141.146 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC

Below is my submission to the propaganda page. It was done as an attempt to engage others in understanding the scope of propaganda, which can extend beyond its use by governments in times of war, as well as Mexican drug cartels. Other industries have been involved in propaganda, and I included the reference to tobacco industry in times past as another illustration. I invite anyone here to check the facts behind my submission, challenge my points, and claim that what I am doing is "propaganda," I would hope, using the definition of the page that is so carefully edited. If one can successfully prove that I have engaged in propaganda with this submission below, then fine. But I don't think you would find a health organization, government minister, or medical doctor who would agree with you. If you cannot, then the only conclusion one can draw from Rjensen's comments is that he has engaged in an unwanted personal attack on me, and should be held accountable.

Thank you for your consideration 70.73.141.146 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tanning Industry

"In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) elevated use of ultraviolet radiation (UVR)-emitting tanning beds to the highest cancer risk category, labeling them 'carcinogenic to humans'. Tanning beds are thus "one of the few industries whose product, if used as the manufacturer intends, puts the user at risk of harm. Another industry in which this is the case is the tobacco industry."

Propaganda by the tanning industry has been achieved through: 1) Support for "third-party advocacy groups and lobbyists to advance their interests" by establishment and support for advocacy groups, including the Indoor Tanning Association, Tanning Truth, the Ultraviolet Foundation, and the Vitamin D Council, 2) use of advertising strategies, "designed to counteract health concerns associated with their services and appeal to a sense of social popularity and acceptance... using idealized depictions of users and celebrity endorsements," and 3) "targeting young people by appealing to image-based social norms and by cost-reduction promotional strategies that may be particularly appealing to young people such as 'discount deals for multiple tanning sessions'". 4) Attempts to "repeatedly ...discredit the medical research linking indoor tanning to cancer, even distributing propaganda purporting health benefits, including the prevention of lung, kidney, and liver cancers through use of UV devices." Tanning propaganda has been reported

Using Canada as an example, 1) Third-party advocacy group is the Joint Canadian Tanning Association (JCTA), led by Steven Gilroy (Executive Director) and Doug McNabb (President), the latter of whom was the Former President of Fabu Tan. 2) Through its website </ref>tancanada.org/</ref> and use of social media, its advertising strategies include the mitigation of the risks of UV radiation, at times using biased presentation of articles in their favour but in direct contradiction to the IARC decision after objectively reviewing all evidence. 3) Comments by its president have included: #Biebs seen at tanning salon in Paris! Not sure - spray/UV tan, he's looking great either way!" (https://twitter.com/DougMcNabb). 4) The president has also falsely asserted that "the real risk" from UV radiation "is from tanning equipment used in doctors offices and home units," , and his insinuations such as "Neutrogena sunscreen donates $200,000 to Canadian #Cancer Society. CCS then says wear sunscreen. Convenient partners?" serve to discredit the medical community and sunwithout evidence. According to the Canadian Pediatric Society, "the industry's marketing and lobbying practices have served to obscure or even deny the hazards and potential carcinogenicity of tanning beds."

Industry efforts to frame artificial UVR as a product associated with health and fitness have been successfully challenged. "In Canada, industry representations generated a complaint by the Canadian Cancer Society to the Competition Bureau in 2005. The subsequent consent agreement with the largest chain of tanning salons in the country stipulated that they must: 'stop making representations to the public linking indoor tanning with the unproven benefits of vitamin D'; 'acknowledge in any promotion of artificial UVR that: “Tanning is not required to generate vitamin D. Vitamin D levels in the body may be maintained by oral supplements without tanning”'; and 'pay an administrative monetary penalty of $62,500.'" As per an ASDA position statement, industry distribution of "propaganda purporting health benefits... through use of UV devices... is based on junk science at best and willful misrepresentation at worst." In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that "such claims constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and that the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce is in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act." Recognition of tanning industry propaganda has been explicitly referred to in popular magazines , as well as by members of the medical community in Canada and the United States, , among others.

(Non-administrator comment) The complainant IP wants to push a POV about tanning on the Propaganda article without regard to WP:UNDUE (as his/her comments above indicate). I've watched User:Rjensen try to politely answer and explain to the greatest degree anyone could. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. I don't stop by here often anymore now that the Obama trolling has died down, but at the risk of being a procedure fascist, please think of AN/I as an Elevator pitch. If you can't make your point in about 100 words, either you are being so indirect and verbose that nobody will pay attention, or you have no point to make. If some editor is such a problem that they need the administrators to intervene, then you can communicate that succinctly, and provide the rest if necessary as backup. I've been there many times over the years, people who are such offensive, vituperative, hateful, and deranged editors that they really ought to be banned from Misplaced Pages with a no-return-for-life add-on. But we're all busy here, and volunteers, you need to communicate that quickly so that someone other than yourself cares, and doesn't immediately assume that this is some unimportant personal quarrel. HTH - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC}

Thank you for the "succinctly", Wikidemon. Tiderolls 08:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the same editor, on a stable IP, who stirred the pot on this in June. It should be noted that FPaS has removed nothing from Rjensen's talk page; the IP just posted the same things they cut-and-pasted from Rjensen's talk page on Rjensen's talk page without giving them a chance to reply, and the comment that they're decrying as a "personal attack" and "bad behavior" is this one which is just as far from either as the Care Bears are from the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. This is a WP:POV-pushing editor who is WP:NOTHERE, and who needs to be blocked, again, just as they were the last time this came up, before they waste any more of the community's time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3 months. Kim Dent-Brown 11:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Petition to undelete an article deleted via AfD

Just a heads-up: there is a petition to undelete an article deleted via AfD, namely Antoinette Tuff. I haven't seen the AfD discussion (which is here) and have no idea how I would judge the merits of the article which I never saw, but I just received a mass-emailing urging me to sign, so this is something that might start showing up pretty soon.... --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be proper to redirect her name to the "Shooting" section in DeKalb County School District? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you really need to, tell them that a deletion review is the correct procedure to follow, and discussions on whether to overturn the deletion or change to a redirect belong there. Beyond that, we have no control over what happens on other sites, so I'd ignore it. Ritchie333 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)