Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 13 September 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

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)
• These facts are undisputed: all sources say Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort have been controlled by China since the 1950s; and the Sino-Indian War was fought in 1962. The difference is that based on these facts, The Discoverer believes it's appropriate to add the articles to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War, while I believe it's not. Can someone please take a look at the arguments and close the discussion? -Zanhe (talk) 21:22, 12 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)

In part, this thread is about Hijiri's twisting small content issues into something else. It is about "spin". 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"? It bears repeating that Shirt58 got it right at the beginning of this thread.

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.

QUESTION: Is the fact that Hijiri initiated a series of ANI threads significant? Yes, it is. This newest thread is only another pretext in a pattern which cannot be parsed neatly -- see here and here and here? With each new complaint, I would have thought that Hijiri88 reveals himself to be like the boy who cried wolf?

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)

@Enkyo2: - I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier question and good faith is waring very thing - 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 09:42, 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)

Would it be too late to reconsider an IBAN? I say this because, skirting round, an editor I have great respect for appears to think Enkyo's contributions to wikipedia are of value. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here again, but ... I believe Enkyo's contributions are of value. I didn't want him to get indeffed, and would have preferred a stern warning and a promise of sanctions if he continued doing what he had been. But I assume by "IBAN" you mean a mutual IBAN? I know I've been repetitive and annoying in my complaints, but no one here seems to think that I was disruptive or deserve to be punished in some way. And last time I accepted such a solution it didn't work out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to reverse the ban, but let's be very lenient in any appeal he might want to make. Shii (tock) 16:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shii: - firstly it's a block not a band; secondly you are WP:INVOLVED, so shouldn't add/remove any restrictions anyways, which is the same reason why Kim or I or anybody else didn't make the block ourselves. GiantSnowman 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By IBAN I meant staying off pages Hijiri works, if he calls for a repeal of the block some months down the track. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 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)

That sounds like a case for Wikiquitte assistiance - oh, wait, we closed that down because we didn't need it, everyone could just use AN/I... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 12 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.

I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

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)

• I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

    You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of B2C and PantherLeapord. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn original MR closure - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:37, 12 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)

• While his ranting style of posting is off-putting, I'd suggest that everyone take a step back and consider that Jeff Rudd clearly has serious concerns about what we are publishing about him and his organization, and we should take that seriously. That doesn't mean we need to do what he asks, but we really shouldn't dismiss that out of hand just because of his abrasive and accusatory style. Gigs (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, his serious concerns should be taken seriously (in the same way that we have WP:DOLT) . But he has now been told several times by several people that his "style" of attacking people and making accusations without evidence is unacceptable. Holding even legitimate concerns does not negate the need for civility, nor is it justification for unfounded personal attacks. Stalwart111 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Threat and deleting pictures w/o getting a consensus

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

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)

• Yet another case where User:Werieth has been shown to be right. Close thread, move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 12 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)

• Rubbish on several counts there. There is absolutely no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to exist - it either is superfluous to the MOS, or it goes against it; your accusations of WP:GAME, which are STILL lacking in any provided evidence, are not relevant as to whether FALKLANDSUNITS is superfluous or not. We do not write guidelines just to make one editor's actions invalid, that would be pointless. ANI is not for content issues anyway. And cut out the "ad hominem" bullshit - the only editor who has come to ANI and who has made the same points as you have is a community-banned sockmaster. Ergo, no one really supports your desire to topic ban this user, and certainly not as strongly as you, or the community-banned sockmaster, do. I could equally state that your opening of multiple ANI threads is an attempt to game the system, or forcing the point, or Wikilawyering, and the fact that they're present on this page or recent archives is stronger evidence than anything you've provided. And community-banned users can NEVER contribute to any debate, as that defeats the entire fucking point of a community ban, and their comments should be reverted the moment that the account/IP is found to be that community-banned user... Either provide evidence to show that he is truly violating WP:GAME, or drop the stick, and stop filing ANI threads willy-nilly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that's definitely ad hominem.

Let's start with the basics. How many ANI threads do you think I have opened here recently? I can't find any before this one within the last six months. So far as I can tell, the only other ANI that I have started in the last year was this one in December 2012, in which I objected to an editor disruptively reassigning Yugoslavia to Serbia on articles about sporting events. It seems to me that this is hardly "filing ANI threads willy-nilly". If you believe I am wrong, please prove it with diffs or links to the archives. If you cannot, please desist from throwing around wild accusations.

I have provided evidence to demonstrate my concerns here. Read my first comment and you'll see plenty. Do you not think that suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisting that a consensus that has held for three years was never consensus is not gaming? Do you not think that trying to force a totally novel interpretation of the MOS, that is clearly against the spirit of that rule and the application of the rule on all other articles, is gaming? As I say, I am at a loss to think what you might consider gaming since these would seem to fall perfectly into the conduct described at WP:GAME.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS documents a consensus. It does not merely repeat WP:UNITS: rather, it makes it clear that WP:UNITS is to be interpreted prescriptively on Falklands articles. Even if the current proposal on Talk:Falkland Islands goes through, it will still be useful in documenting the consensus for a prescriptive interpretation of WP:UNITS, and also documenting the consensus that the Falklands are UK-related for the purposes of WP:UNITS. Both are points that editors have tried to game in the past. There are lots and lots of projects out there that have their own style guides, and there is no reason why the Falklands should not be allowed to as well, documenting points that are relevant only to that particular project.

Finally, it would be exceedingly foolish to dogmatically dismiss any comment without considering its contents - even if the point was made by a sockpuppet. There is no policy that says you are not allowed to agree with somebody who raises a good point, sockpuppet or not. To take an extreme example, if a sockpuppet points out that a negative claim in a BLP is unsourced and unlikely, we aren't going to leave it unchanged just because it was a sockpuppet who said it. Trying to argue guilt by association is unhelpful and not exactly likely to calm tempers. Kahastok talk 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And what if "consensus" goes against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. WP:UNITS provides for a mix of units and WP:FALKLANDSUNITS mirrors that mix. The list of units applied is the same. So it isn't an issue. Kahastok talk 06:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What if "consensus" does go against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are two unanswered requests for clarification relating to a suspected conflict of interest wrt metric/imperial/customary systems of units to this editor at User_talk:Martinvl#A_serious_question and User_talk:Martinvl#September_2013. The answer to those may have a bearing on this discussion. R.stickler (talk) 06:27, 13 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? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support one-month block This is unacceptable pbp 15:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support immediate unblock - I find this discussion troublesome and writing an edit summary with the phrase "translating TTT-speak into a standard..." is open to interpretation. It is best to drop this and move on.I am One of Many (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support immediate unblock. NE Ent has already reminded Tony on his talk that Wikipedians don't need racial reasons to act like jerks to each other. If he makes insinuations of racism again, just giving him blocks of escalating length. Indefs ought to be a last resort, as it often seems editors can then only get unblocked if they grovel. Not the way to treat an editor of TTT's monumental productivity. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is at least the third time Tony has decided to try to race card his way out of a debate that wasn't going the way he wanted. There is no indication that any determinate-length block will solve the problem - Tony has explicitly said that he just Wikibreaks until the block expires, which means it has zero effect. He needs to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive, and agree to change that disruptive behavior, in order to continue being part of the encylopedia - and as soon as he does that (which is, it should be noted, not "groveling"), the block gets lifted. The "they're productive" double-standard does not help the encyclopedia, it only drives people away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a block of escalating length. Tony was given two 48 hour blocks for pulling the race card, one last year and one 2 weeks ago, although that probably should have been longer. Given his inability to realise that his actions are unacceptable, an indef is the obvious escalation. Might help if you check his block log before commenting. Blackmane (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock just as soon as TTT accepts that accusations of racism, however veiled, are not appropriate, and undertakes to avoid such behaviour in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This diff suggests Tony still does not see an issue with his behaviour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think TonyTheTiger has made any "accusations of racism". I have my differences with TonyTheTiger, but I object to the assumption that references to one's own identity can be construed, in every case, to be "accusations of racism". Where has TonyTheTiger accused anybody of racism? Show me the diffs. "evenifthemessangerisblack" is not an accusation of racism. It is a reference one's self-identity. It may be off-topic, but it is not an "accusation". My own issues with TonyTheTiger relate to his editing of articles on works of art at which he fails to take any personal stances on contentious issues. In that capacity TonyTheTiger has frustrated my attempts to address those contentious issues. I can only deal with editors who are willing to articulate their own stances and who are willing to defend those stances. In an effort to get Whaam! to featured article status TonyTheTiger has taken steps at the two FACs to advance positions with which I disagree. When I have challenged TonyTheTiger to defend a position that he implicitly represents, his response has been that another editor or more than one other editor supports the position which he implicitly represents. This is inconsistent with proper use of a Talk page. It is only by discussing actual content that an article can be improved. I don't support the blocking/banning of TonyTheTiger for any reason. My hope is that I won't have to deal with a similar situation at other articles on works of art that TonyTheTiger might work on. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is the comment that got the ball rolling last time (see his follow up answers here and here). The one that got this thread going has been linked above, twice. I don't recall anyone saying Tony was stating it explicitly, but the implication is quite clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• ANI thread which was only recently archived, and I mean recently, was the one in which he received his latest 48 hr block prior to the indef. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If a reference can be easily shrugged off with a joke then it is not a true accusation of racism. We should feel free to talk about ourselves if we are so inclined. This can include references to any aspect of our identity. There is no reason to block someone when one can just as easily respond, "Me racist—what makes you think I'm racist?" One can even respond with, "I am offended by any implication that I am racist because I certainly am not". The discussion would end right there as no evidence of racism can be produced. I don't think we have to control human interaction in fine detail. It is sufficient if we simply ensure that greater infractions are prevented. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on, you can shrug off any comment with a joke if you're that way inclined, including death threats. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block, oppose ban, support multiple whacks with very large trout, or, possibly, one whale squish. Tony, you know better. I can understand how in the heat of the moment one can lose one's temper, and on that basis oppose the sanctions, but I think it would make a great deal of sense if Tony did voluntarily leave certain pages alone for a while. Should behavior along these lines continue, maybe, unfortunately, seeking disciplinary sanctions in the future might be called for, but I very very sincerely hope that the situation doesn't get to that level. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef. I supported an indef last time around and I support one here. It seems clear TTT is going to continue to throw these accusations around without concern of the obvious chilling effect they will have when they have no evidence for their accusations based either on a misunderstanding of racism actually is, or a bizzarre asssumption people many of who likely don't even (or wouldn't even) know their race were it not for their continued accusations of racism (and the obvious question that raises). The fact this is coming so close from the last accusation doesn't help their case. Noting as always that this is an indefinite not a permanent ban, unless they can provide some actual evidence of racism, they need to undertake not to throw around further baseless accusations of racism which IMO would be enough for an unblock. Personally I would suggest they refrain from making accusations of racism at all, frankly as I believe I said last time, I don't trust them given what they've said to make such accusations. If they have genuine evidence of racism they are welcome to bring it privately to an admin. However this doesn't have to be made a condition of an unblock. I would oppose a ban at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies - personal attacks & NOTHERE

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

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)

Although I had thought TE was a constructive editor in the Tea Party movement fiasco, I think you made a good call. If I had been watching edits, I might have attempted to intervene, but I don't see what else you could have done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 12 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)

Wooooooow, just read all the past history. Simply terrifying stuff, and not just from Niemti here. Despatche (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not have any time to investigate, but simply looking at (edit summary) of your last edit in the article, it seems that ridiculous joke about "stealing" actually comes from you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 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)

Bus Stop: NFCC #1 is clear "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Pakistani People is so broad that it's just not an argument that a non-free image isn't replaceable. I'm sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous about that. The subject of the article "Pakistani People" is what we judge NFCC off of when determining which images cannot be used. Just because a non-free image can be hosted on Misplaced Pages and used in 1 article does not give us free range to use it in all articles. Each use has to be evaluated on it's own. It's use in Pakistani People does not pass criteria #1 or #8. Sorry, but that's inarguable.--v/r - TP 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis—your statement was "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image and no free equivalent is available". The statement in policy is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." These are not identical statements. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 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)

• These kind of threads are a big reason why I gave up on NFCC enforcement. People who enforce NFCC are routinely abused, harassed, insulted, taken to various noticeboards, reverted, and otherwise generally bullied and abused. Fasi, you are utterly, completely wrong about the example you noted. You can not use non-free images in that infobox when there are plenty of free images of Pakistani people. Your failure to understand WP:NFCC does not constitute a reason to complain about someone who does understand that policy. For all your talk of Werieth being a "constant source of trouble for ", I see only one exchange between you and he on his talk page, back in early August, and just three notices from him on your talk page about orphaned non-free images. Constant? Hardly. As others have mentioned, you were also out of line for failing to inform Werieth of this thread, despite big red letters on the top of this page telling you to do so, despite a big orange edit notice at the top of the edit window when you added this thread here. Why did you ignore those? There is nothing for administrators to do here, Recommend closure of the thread, and a trout slap to Fasi100 to pay attention to WP:NFCC from this point forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Amen and seconded! Technical 13 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • All of these images (there are 135 of them) where Werieth commented out uses of non-free images have to be reverted. Otherwise we will end up hosting non-free images that are not actually used in any articles, and there will be no way to locate them, as the file link will not disappear. I am going to use rollback to revert his edits -- Diannaa (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Dianaa, I was under the impression, having seen it in action a few times, that there was a bot patrolling recent edits that detected and tagged for deletion those non-free images that were orphaned. Has this changed? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually I was just checking this further and discovered that commenting out the image does remove the file link from the page, so rolling back these edits won't be necessary after all. For example, he commented out File:OJHL Logo.jpg from four articles, and the image is only showing one file link now. So whew, that part seems okay. Not sure if a bot tags orphaned images - I think lately Werieth has been tagging them manually - he has 1,597 edits to files so far this month. There's a daily database report of orphaned non-free files at Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Unused non-free files. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • What? Do I have this right? You were suggesting reverting all the commenting out so that these images will no longer be orphaned, but they will be used improperly due to the reversions you were suggesting? That doesn't make sense as at all. An orphaned non-free image is far better than a non-free image used improperly in an article. It is also a LOT easier to find. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It was late at night (1 am), and I was tired and made a mistake. I somehow got it into my head that if the images were commented out that the file link was not removed. My concern was that images that did not actually appear in articles would not show up as orphaned the way they are supposed to do. This is not the case; if an image is commented out the file link no longer is active for that particular article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry if this doesn't make much sense; perhaps it's the kind of thing that only makes sense at 1 am. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
          • No worries :) Happens to all of us! Thanks for clarifying. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 13 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)

A couple more comments that I missed. I don't understand the ownership of Template:Valley Line (ETS) accusation, Useddenim is the primary editor of that page. Just because the tools exist doesn't mean we should use them. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 13 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)

(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)

• Good block. This person has been bugging the Propaganda page and Rjensen for too long, all for the purpose of inserting an original research/coatrack diatribe against tanning salons and skin cancer. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Their contributions to other pages, like Tanning bed, should probably be picked through too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Petition to undelete an article deleted via AfD

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

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)

Agreed, DRV is the way to go here. You might also have an argument for a redirect, especially if she is mentioned at the school (or the district) article. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a memorial or a place to honor others. They can make their own website to honor her. It's sounds insensitive but it's really a difference in priorities. Besides, we have a process to bring back articles and petitions are not in. Her heroic acts are better covered in the article about the shooting or school which already covers her.--v/r - TP 13:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And would thus make sense to have a redirect on her name to that since it is a likely searchable term. A full article, heck no per WP:BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 15:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I did think about creating a redirect, but didn't because consensus didn't go that way at the AfD, though it makes sense for the policies stated upthread. Ritchie333 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting IP addresses edit warring to delete reliable source and calling me a Satanist

I have to admit, it is kind of funny but still technically disruptive. I'll try to keep this brief.
Edit warring at Sunni Islam:

• Special:Contributions/31.55.70.24 deletes a reliable source at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• I reverted him at 07:05, 12 September 2013
• Special:Contributions/109.144.134.141 deletes the same source at 09:33, 12 September 2013

Edit warring at Template:Sunni Islam:

• 31.55.70.24 deletes info relating to the reliable source at the Sunni Islam article at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• I reverted him at 07:04, 12 September 2013
• Same IP reverts and deletes the info again at 09:35, 12 September 2013
• Gets reverted by User:Wiqi55 at 11:00, 12 September 2013

Edit warring at Madhhab:

• 31.55.70.24 deletes reliably sourced info at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• Gets reverted by User:Faizhaider at 05:36, 12 September 2013
• 109.144.134.141 deletes the same info at 09:25, 12 September 2013

Personal attacks at Talk:Sunni Islam:

• 31.55.70.24 accuses me of preying on the "gullible majority" who trust "Sheikh Misplaced Pages" at 04:51, 12 September 2013
• I advise him to review WP:IRS at 07:07, 12 September 2013
• 109.144.134.141 calls me a Inverted Black Magic Pentagram "Muslim" (quotation marks his) at 09:40, 12 September 2013. Gotta admit it's kind of funny but still technically a personal attack. Also, he accused me of suckpuppeting though he doesn't specify whether he thinks my sockpuppet is Faizhaider or Wiqi55.

Let it also be noted that I tried to reason with 31.55.70.24 about the RS guideline at their talk page at User talk:31.55.70.24 at 07:07, 12 September 2013. The guy is clearly on a POV pushing roll and doesn't seem willing to listen to any contrary opinions. I tried on two talk pages and to no avail, and Wiqi55 and Faizhaider's efforts are similarly failing to get through to this individual (and it's clearly either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet), plus it includes several issues (edit warring, personal attacks) so I thought it would technically be more appropriate for immediate attention here than the edit warring noticeboard. I don't know how IP addresses are dealt with in these cases but merely protecting the articles in question may not be enough, a user like this is liable to run amock on other articles as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not know it was a Satanic symbol. Thank you for teaching me about the meaning of the symbol MezzoMezzo, but as you are a Muzlim who knows such things I do not understand why you keep the symbol on your wall? Concerning your fringe POV bias on the Zahiri school of Fiqh (the school of all the most extreme Islamic terrorist organizations). You can not expect the 2 billion Muslims who know better to suddenly accept it as true just because you make Misplaced Pages say this? You should be more concerned about the integrity of this encyclopaedia. Shame on you. And shame on you for presenting a screwed up chronology of events. Hopefully someone else will also look into 31.55.70.24's edit histories and not just trust your word. Peace. 109.144.134.141 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

An consequential observation for the puzzled. I suspect that the "Inverted Black Magic Pentagram" referred to is this one, which appears on MezzoMezzo's user page. Kim Dent-Brown 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The IP's kinda got a point: why DO we use an inverted star for that? --erachima talk 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

because we are Inverted Black Magic Pentagram "Muslim"s? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons the Medal of Honor does? (Also it should be noted that inverted star =/= inverted pentagram any more than upright star = normal pentagram) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly because the Medal of Honor was created by the secret Baphomet-worshiping NWO.--erachima talk 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would point (ha!) out that what is being called here an "inverted star", could just as easily be interpreted as a star rotated around its centerpoint by 36 degrees left or right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the guy edited his own comment at that talk page to move the quotation marks from around the world Muslim (thus questioning whether I really am Muslim or a secret Satanist) to around Black Magic, which ostensibly would be less offensive? Anyway, he seems to have calmed down though his above ranting about two billion Muslims and knowing better and me supposedly skewing the time stamps is still worrying. I've never had problems with IP addresses like this before. What happens next? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe next you turn him into a newt, and he gets better? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 and WP:Involved

I've had concerns regarding User:Bbb23 and his handling of the MRM probation for some time. Recently, it appears to me that the user has stepped over the line from admin to editor in this area.

Please see this exchange for some background.

Summary:

User:Bbb23 Semi-protected an article with the reasoning of "Persistent sock puppetry: MRM probation sanctions".

This article has had 3 different IP's edit it in the last month. They don't appear to be inserting the same information, and the last edit before the protection was to add some additional ref's. None of these IP's are marked as sockpuppets, nor do they appear to be.

After protecting the article, Bbb23 reverted the edit of the last IP, citing the MRM sanctions.

When asked to provide the rationale for the revert. Bbb23 responded that his edit summary provided the rationale. When asked how the edit violated the probation, Bbb23 reponded thusly. I commented that this action does not appear to be an adminstrative one, but a content/editorial one, and asked that he self revert or consider himself WP:Involved in the area. He has yet to respond to this, though he has been editing actively since.

When discussing his involvement in this area on their talk page, they state "This is one of the few areas where I sanction editors based on content as much as conduct" which to me, is troubling.

What I'd like to see here, is the community opinion on if Bbb23 should be performing admin actions in an area where he is making editorial decisions. And if the community feels that he is not involved, do they feel this rationale provided for the protection and revert are sufficient (or accurate). Arkon (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he should continue to patrol. Perhaps you haven't heard of WP:RBI? Reverting blocked editors after protecting an article is a perfectly legitimate admin action.--v/r - TP 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP, but the spirit behind the principle is the same. As I recall (Misplaced Pages is having technical issues so it's hard for me to confirm), there was one individual disruptively editing from different IP addresses, so to block the individual would have been difficult. In effect, semi-protection "blocked" them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What can I say... This combination of admin and non-adming actions looks just as self-righteous as when you were reverting User:Jimbo Wales for "BLP violations" on that guru talk page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to look a little bit more deeply into this. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the only admin action I'm considering is blocking the multiple editors that are attempting to bully User:Bbb23 off this article area. All of you (the others I'm sure I don't need to name, but you know who you are, and some of those have previous for the same issues in other areas) are displaying behaviour that is not acceptable in any scenario, especially that of a collaborative encyclopedia. Please stop it - now. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite. The courage to call it. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet - good call by Black Kite. GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was inadequate, the explanation on the talk page sufficient. NE Ent 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would also note that the terms of the article probation are explicit about what constitutes involvement: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that WP:Involved was violated (and I'm not saying it was), the community imposed sanction supersedes it, and there is no way Bbb23 violated the article probation standard for being considered involved. Monty₈₄₅ 00:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is very clearly covered by the probation. Further it's not the first time Arkon's thrown 'round accusations of involved with sysops in this area: see his interaction with KC claiming she was "involved" in this thread--Cailil 12:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

User:Yatrides has made a legal threat here Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I see some things that I guess could be legal threats in there, but could also be read other ways, its not proper English, which makes it harder to judge. Monty₈₄₅ 00:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure "No response from you within eight (8) days (deadline September 21, 2013), I will act in any legal normality," is a legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain policy says "should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved" and the top o' this page says to discuss things with the editor before opening ANI threads. 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the subject of the article, a newbie in Misplaced Pages rules is trying to remove inaccuracies from his own article. He seems to indeed making legal threats but probably because of his ignorance of wiki rules rather than evil intentions. It looks like a case for WP:DOLT. Please check the references he provided and update the article or explain to User:Yatrides why his proposals are unacceptable. I will write him a warning about WP:NLT Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have written the warning to User_talk:Yatrides#Legal_threat, hope it helps. Meanwhile please review the latest reverted edit by Yatrides and check what of this can be returned back to the article based on the sources he provided on the talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it might be a WP:DOLT case, which is why I didn't drop a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Their links indicate that they're a native french speaker. It would be worth dropping a line to the France wiki project for some help, or perhaps a multilingual admin? Blackmane (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

USA Track & Field‎

The article at USA Track & Field‎ seems to be under attack from, first an IP, then converting to different user names. It is the same individual, constantly trying to put forms of "swag" into the prose. I am requesting protection. Trackinfo (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like three days of semi-protection were put in a few hours before already, so the issue has been dealt with. Future requests should go to WP:Requests for page protection. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Texas1966 and User:I.wont.stop66 on Cinco Ranch High School

The above user (I.wont.stop is so obviously a sock that I am not even going to dignify it by using a plural) keeps reverting a cleanup I did at the above article. I removed a bunch of fairly typical WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Texas reverted it twice, here and here. I reinstated it both times, with an invitation to the talk page in the edit summary, and the mild twinkle edit war warning the first time and the severe one the second time. I also added a note pleading with him to come to the talk page the second time, here. His response was to create the I.wont.stop66 account and revert it yet again here.

The only edits either account has made are to the above article. The first two edits texas made were addition of more schoolcruft. The rest have been this edit war, with 0 participation in discussion anywhere. I am asking for a block on both accounts (and hopefully a hardblock of the IP if possible) per WP:NOTHERE and WP:SOCK, and for some protection on the page if a hard block is not possible. I will notify both personas as soon as I post this. I have not reverted back to the cleaned up version, as I do not want to get even close to 3RR. I came here rather than the 3RR noticeboard due to the addition of socking to the mix. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I.wont.stop66 blocked as an obvious sock, the other account left alone for now in case some belated contrition sets in. They've fallen into an autoblock, so both accounts and the IP are out of commission for now. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. Thanks. Another editor restored the cleaned up version. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Request partial page protection

Dealt with -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I am requesting partial page protection (registered users only) for Fairfax County Public Schools. I came to the page to give a third opinion and made an edit in line with what seems to be a clear majority of registered editors only to have it quickly reverted by an IP. One IP has already been blocked but IPs continue to edit war against consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the official venue for that sort of thing. NE Ent 09:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page has now been semi-protected by another admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, accusations of vandalism by User:Snertking

I recently removed a section from Mel Sembler that I thought violated WP:BLP. While this was clearly a legitimate content dispute, User:Snertking reacted by accusing myself and several other editors of vandalism:

• ..."User GabrielF has vandalized this page in past making false claims of unreliable sources and spurious BLP claims.)"
• To an IP editor: "Thanks a lot, asshat. I have enough problems keeping vandalism from Sembler fans like GabrielF off the page without jerkwads like you pulling crap like you did. In fact your recent cute antics drew his attention and he deleted the whole section about the UN human rights thing"

Snertking added a vandalism warning to my talk pages:

At this point I brought the content issue to WP:BLPN and User:NorthBySouthBaranof agreed that the section was inappropriate per BLP and removed it. Snertking then left a vandalism warning on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page:

Another editor, User:Cullen328 saw the BLPN post and removed a separate section from the article, which he thought was also a BLP violation. Snertking responded by leaving a vandalism template on Cullen328's talk page:

Cullen advised Snertking of the difference between vandalism and legitimate content disputes. I made the same point to Snertking. However, Snertking left another vandalism tag on my talk page despite these two explanations.. Snertking continued to accuse me of vandalism and of making personal attacks:

• "I WILL stand by my accusation of GabrielF vandalizing it in the past, as the proof is incontrovertible."

As two editors have tried to discuss the difference between legitimate bold editing and vandalism with Snertking without success, I request administrator assistance. GabrielF (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have retracted my allegations of vandalism against NorthBySouthBaranof and even thanked him for his most recent edits, and understand what he did was correct. I jumped the gun on that one when I saw that he had had blocks against him in the past and assumed the worst. I was wrong on that.

There were two sections being blanked, one that I now realize was legitimate, and initially by northbysouthbaranof. The second, which is being claimed as a BLP issue and being repeatedly blanked by GabrielF, is not. The text in question refers to a flurry of press articles covering the alleged invasion of privacy of a public figure. It is well sourced from multiple publications, yet GabrielF continues to blank it. This is not bold editing, it is warring and vandalism on his part. My accusations of vandalism by against GabrielF via blanking sections without concensus, especially after a previous consensus to leave it standing had been reached, still stand. He has had a history of such vandalism in the past, blanking out large sections of content that reflects negatively on the subject of the article. I would ask that someone check the IP history of GabrielF and see if any edit from him of any page have come from the 208.69.24.0/24 block, which is owned by sembler.com, as there has also been a history of similar blanking type vandalism coming from that range. Snertking (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to open an WP:SPI case, please do so. Although ANI is not the place for content, I cannot fathom why anyone would believe that the full paragraph about the stolen penis pump would/should belong in the article - both WP:BRD and WP:BLP do apply, and I would remove the section immediately and start a WP:CONSENSUS discussion on the article talkpage as to whether or not to retain it - or perhaps small parts of it. As it sits now, GabrielF was very much right to remove it. As to the rest of this complaint, the apologies and retractions are welcome - this incident in and of itself was something that WP:WQA would have handled ages ago - but someone in their infinite wisdom shut that down. ES&L 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Snertking continues to make baseless accusations against me. There is no grounds for an SPI. The previous edits Snertking is complaining about occurred over 18 months ago and concerned similar BLP issues as have been raised today. Raising BLP issues on an article that was once edited by someone from the article subject's company is hardly grounds for SPI. If Snertking thinks I am representing Sembler, perhaps he should read Straight, Incorporated, which I completely rewrote and decide whether it deals unfairly with the organization. If ANI is not the appropriate forum then I will transfer the matter to WP:RFC/U as multiple editors have engaged User:Snertking on this matter without success. GabrielF (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wow. The subject of this BLP founded a drug treatment program. A former patient of that program claimed to have found a penis pump (aka "personal item") in the subject's trash. LOLs and injunctions and media circus ensue. Now an article at Misplaced Pages is used to immortalize the attack on the subject by a clearly deranged individual. And the editor who removes the material (GabrielF) gets the abuse recorded above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • After I explained why I removed the section, both at WP:BLPN and on my talk page, Snertking repeated his accusation of vandalism against me. Read the HuffPo sources - advocacy opinion pieces defending the harassment with lurid headlines. And those headlines are in the article now, unless they've just been removed. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just summarily closed a retaliatory SPI filed by Snertking against GabrielF. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations at Patricia Cloherty (again).

Shakespeare21 (talk · contribs)

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

The history of this article is extensive so please work with me as I try to summarise it quickly. The subject requested deletion of the article last year because it had been the constant focus of BLP violations, attacks and vandalism. I and a couple of others volunteered to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and we set about removing the violations and properly sourcing as many of the claims as we could. Throughout that effort and thereafter, a single purpose account tried everything he could to retain the BLP violations and was eventually threatened with a block on 5 January this year. Four days later, a new WP:SPA showed up (Shakespeare21) and slowly started editing a related BLP. Eventually he started editing Cloherty's article. He insists that this source is "the federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government" when the source itself clearly says it's the "Full text of Inslaw's Rebuttal to the Bua Report". It's hosted on this professional looking site - www.copi.com. I've spent the better part of a year trying to defend this BLP from constant vandalism and slow-moving edit wars by SPA's who have an issue with the subject (and it has been protected 4 times since 2009). The quacking from the editor is obvious (it has been referred to SPI but the older account is stale) given the claims of "controversy" he is trying to insert are exactly the same as previous accounts/IPs. I'm at 2RR and he's just passed 3RR in an effort to edit-war his "controversy" claim into the article. Request more admin eyes, blocks, protection, whatever. This is getting really old. INB4 "this is a content dispute" - no, this is the continuation of a campaign to attack a BLP with just about the worst sources available because of some off-wiki drama. I'm Australian and have zero connection to the subject (though I have been accused by previous SPAs of "working" for her) other than my interest in the original AFD. Stalwart111 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I protected this article a while ago because of BLP violations and it's disappointing to see this happening again. Unfortunately I didn't keep it on my watchlist. The source being used is which is clearly not a RS for a BLP (or probably for almost anything), and the link may be copyvio (or forged, or whatever, again not an RS for a BLP). I've reverted and may have to protect again. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is his latest effort in the related BLP - using a claimed inaccuracy in one section to remove content from a different section of well-sourced (to the Wall Street Journal) but positive commentary. Stalwart111 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive anon contributor stalking my edits

See Special:Contributions/49.249.26.44. They have just appeared, are stalking my edits across a range of articles and are doing so by reverting perfectly valid work without attempting to fix the issues raised, some of which have been tagged for two years. I have a fair idea who this actually is but SPI will not link IPs to user accounts. In any event, it is point-y, disruptive & I would appreciate admin intervention. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it's who I think it is, and whether our guesses are the same. It's a moot point, though; Floq beat me to the punch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who it is, but it's clearly a returning disruptive editor of some kind. IP blocked for a week, let someone know if other IP's crawl out of the woodwork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Out of interest, if an IP is blocked then does that affect a logged-in registered user operating from that IP? I suspect not but it might aid my sock hunting if it did. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the block options; it hasn't been turned on for this block, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. In any event, they're certainly evading their block as Special:Contributions/49.249.13.176 already. I've not got time to evaluate whether these are truly constructive (there is a source involved but that doesn't mean much in itself). - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've have just looked and it is almost all bad: one of the two sources added to the lead comes from a swami, self-published via a p.o.d. outfit called Trafford Publishing, the other does not support anything except a subphrase; much of the rest has been reinstated without sourcing and includes removal of a valid cn tag - hopeless, but I cannot revert. If someone does and they pop up again then the article will likely need semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits from first IP rolled back, second IP blocked (1week), page semi-protected for 3 weeks. If a rangeblock is needed, ask another admin, I don't do these. MLauba 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Erachima

Erachima is an editor I have had no interaction with outside of his sudden appearance in the MOSAM discussion on September 12. Erachima moved the contested and unofficial MOSAM page to back to a community guideline despite it never going through the process. Originally, AdamCuerden noticed the MOSAM never passing the guideline and WhatamIdoing affirmed it and noticed the notability section of MOSAM as being an conflict with the policy page. The editor jumped into the conflict and began making accusations and attacks against me. Including a tacit acknowledgement of bad faith when I asked for assuming good faith. The reinsertion of something policy is against with three editors seemingly in agreement was part of the problem. Despite asking Erachima to stop making personal attacks and stop posting on my page, it continues. I removed his posts three times with said summary and also messaged his talk page. After these requests, Erachima posted again and I promptly removed it. I ask this user refrain from posting on my talk page and stop with the polemic characterization of my stance on MOSAM as a "vendetta". It is unconstructive and certainly unwanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to do as they wish with messages once they are on their talk pages, but they are not allowed to prohibit posting messages there.
  Per WP:NPA, "Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion." I maintain that my characterization of Chris's antagonistic personal relationship to the MOS:ANIME policy is accurate and salient to the discussions at MOS:ANIME and of MOS:ANIME at the Policy pump, but will refrain from the use of the loaded term "vendetta" in the future.
  On a sidenote, I find Chris's repeated emphasis that he "doesn't even know me", "has had no interaction with me", etc. baffling, as all edits and statements made on Misplaced Pages are a matter of public record and it takes minimal effort to become acquainted with someone's history on a subject. --erachima talk 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Erachima: Just a minor correction - users are allowed to "ban" you from their talkpage, by requesting you do not post there (except for required notices). It is often found that failing to acknowledge and follow that request constitutes harassment. ~Charmlet 23:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I believe that is a change in policy since I was last involved in any of the local drama. My recollection is that talk page bans were a community measure given following evidence of harassment, and were not permitted simply because some user didn't like hearing from another user. --erachima talk 23:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It is not a policy based ban - any blocks that have come from these bans have been because it has been seen by the rest of the community as harassment to continue posting on a user's talkpage when they've asked you to stop. ~Charmlet 23:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I see. In that case, if it remains a matter of judgment and politeness rather than a hard rule, I will continue my current stance of not posting on Chris's talkpage unless he, say, puts another giant automated template demanding a response on my talk page. Which is what he did in the latter case he complains about.
          In the former, he had merely insulted me in an edit summary, which I will admit it would have been more mature to simply ignore. --erachima talk 23:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

History merge request

The revision history of Template:Infobox South African town should be merged with that of Template:Infobox South African town 2011, so that the former can be deleted and the latter renamed. I don't know if there is any place where to ask this, so I leave the request here in the hope that a kind administrator will notice it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards