Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:03, 22 March 2014

• 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

Viriditas again

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

Viriditas appears to be starting throwing his aggression around again at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol: . This is clearly inappropriate. Can someone nip this in the bud? I'm not sure how anyone is expected to interact with someone as hostile as that. Cheers, Second Quantization (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Viriditas, he is certainly being very aggressive, but the "other side" could also stand to stop cherry-picking terrible studies to use as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems almost like baiting to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All involved need to just relax and smoke a joint (where it's legal of course).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume I am on the other side? I picked some well cited papers (50-60 each) which discuss related topics, then I faced a barrage of attack. I didn't cherry pick them, (where are these alternative studies, indicative of the literature, that you say we are ignoring?) I picked the most highly cited I could find which were within ~5 years. I have no preformed views on this topic, and could not care less if cannabis is legalised or not. There is a reasonable discussion we could have about this topic, but Viriditas is jumping in with comments like: "Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. ", "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure.". How are we meant to address someone that claims that scientific peer review is a "Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean?". Also "Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them?" Second Quantization (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems according to Viriditas I'm not cherry picking but that: "The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost by drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down.". Seriously, when someone claims mass conspiracy in the literature ... There is no reliable source we can use to show anything, because he will instantly trump it by saying that's all part of the conspiracy. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely why I said you were ignorant. You appear to know absolutely nothing about the United Nations drug program which is seeking to outlaw cannabis in every country. This is reported on in reliable sources virtually every week. BBC did a story two days ago, and it's been all over the news since Uruguay voted to legalize it in 2013, which greatly upset the UN . There is nothing conspiratorial about this at all, you're just completely ignorant on the subject. The UN repeats misinformation and propaganda about cannabis to further their anti-cannabis agenda. Virtually every claim they've made about cannabis has been totally debunked by experts in their respective fields, so one wonders what's going on here. With all the problems in the world, with all the war (which the UN has totally failed in their stated mission to end) and hunger and suffering, one wonders why the UN is threatening other countries who legalize cannabis. To whose benefit? The only people that benefit from the criminalization of cannabis are 1) drug dealers, 2) the prison industry, and 3) authoritarian governments, who prefer to restrict the freedom of their citizens to alter their consciousness (cognitive liberty), which is ironically a violation of the human rights charter that the UN is supposed to uphold. This is an historical fucking fact, not some crazy conspiracy. Heck, you didn't even know we were discussing deaths from Marinol, yet you responded to the topic. And now you say you've never heard of Marinol? Is this some kind of a joke? Stop discussing topics you don't know anything about. You are wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a random look at the article and this is what I found when I zoned in on what I find to be the most controversial claim:

Impact on psychosis A literature review on the subject concluded that "cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis." Arseneault, L.; Cannon, M; Witton, J; Murray, RM (2004). "Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (2): 110–117. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.2.110. PMID 14754822. In other words, THC and other active substances of cannabis may accentuate symptoms in people already predisposed, but likely don't cause psychotic disorders on their own. However, a French review from 2009 came to a conclusion that cannabis use, particularly that before age 15, was a factor in the development of schizophrenic disorders. Laqueille, X. (2009). "Le cannabis est-il un facteur de vulnérabilité des troubles schizophrènes?". Archives de Pédiatrie. 16 (9): 1302–5. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2009.03.016. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This is what I see as cherry picking - the first source is a primary source journal. It is not a secondary source interpretation or analysis of the journal's contents or conclusions. This is a misuse of the primary source. We cannot make this claim: "A literature review on the subject concluded that...." and then make our own conclusions or analysis in Misplaced Pages's voice. Then the next source is a non English source and you will have to excuse me here but...why? The US and the UK have all done studies and there are tons of journals. Are we saying that there are no English sources of equal validity? This does seem outrageous to me and I can see why some would get a tad tired of having to deal with this kind of thing if it is persistent and I think it may be. Then, when I go to your talk page I notice what appears to be a non neutral notification to you about other contributions to these "Cannabis" related articles and in turn a quick discussion of "Ideological warriors pushing their viewpoints and ignoring the science because peer review is a means of subjugation by "the man" or whatever". You will excuse me if I say you been here long enough (since 2006) to know that you are bringing the attention to yourself in a manner that makes me wonder who is the one pushing what agenda. I suggest that this is a heated content dispute and you may want to take into consideration what it looks like to others and not just what others look like to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"I took a random look at the article and ..." Erm, no one has claimed this article is perfect and I have never defended that subsection. The specific issue under discussion is THC and myocardial infarction. There is no discussion related specifically to psychosis, so I don't see why you are talking about it? I see no one who has defended that subsection and has nothing to do with the myocardial infarction which was. The validity of viriditas argument that there is a conspiracy amongst Stroke, Lancet etc to exclude pro-cannabis publications related to myocardial infarction is not related to the psychosis section. Second Quantization (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it is a historical fact. This was published in the Los Angeles Times eight hours ago: "For years, scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials...Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Suzanne A. Sisley, clinical assistant professor of psychology at the university's medical school...has been trying to get the green light for her study for three years...scientists have had difficulty getting approval to study how the drug might be employed more effectively...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects...In the last 10 years, the government had approved just one U.S. research center to conduct clinical trials involving marijuana use for medical purposes...The scientist who runs that center, Igor Grant, said his success in getting Washington's sign-off was due in large part to something other scientists do not have: the full force of the state..."Every one of those studies showed, in the short term, a beneficial effect," Grant said. "There is very good evidence cannabis is helpful." Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That does not say what you think it says. It does not support the specific conspiracy you were advocating that positive research about the health risks can not be published. Funding in relation to exploring medical research is a different but unrelated issue. I should also note your hypocrisy. You said "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of". That article only uses that term when referring to cannabis. You berate me for the very things you do while yet again conflating separate issues. Second Quantization (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated any "conspiracy", that's your claim, and the source says exactly what I just quoted to you verbatim; how could it say anything else? It most certainly does support the idea that "positive research about the health risks can not be published" and I quoted it directly from the article: "Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects", emphasis added. Of course, I'm sure you'll continue to misrepresent this until the end of time. There are roadblocks in the US to publishing "positive research about the health risks", and if you had bothered to follow the saga of just two scientists quoted in that article, Suzanne A. Sisley and Igor Grant, you would have acknowledged your mistake. Exactly what do you think the sentence "scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials" refers to here? It refers to the inability to study and publish positive research. Would you please stop whatever it is you are doing and actually educate yourself on the history of cannabis research in the US? I mean, just this once, try to educate yourself. You say you have no clue as to what Marinol is, yet you participate in a discussion about it without even educating yourself on the topic. Do you think some people might find your behavior frustrating, perhaps even disruptive? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get you at all, you claim peer review is meaninglessness because journals won't publish positive research, and you argue about the NIDA despite none of the sources being funded by the NIDA. You take the claims of Cannabis advocates at face value. You continue to focus on medical usage studies not getting funded and extrapolate wildly from an article in the LA to attack all peer reviewed papers in this area. Now you are using the very marijuana term that you attacked me for: ""But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and ...". The studies are not funded by the NIDA. Your issues are irrelevant. There is no evidence of a conspiracy amongst journals (some of which aren't even based in the US) to exclude positive research. Second Quantization (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are just continuing your content dispute here and I was avoiding that by using a completely different sampling of the article. I suggest DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By looking at samplings of the article rather than Viriditas' behaviour you are turning it into a content dispute. I am concerned with the aggression by viriditas, as shown by the diffs above and the claims of conspiracies. It's purely the behaviour that I am concerned with, and that should be under discussion here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously though...that Marinol section has a huge chunk sourced to About.com. More eyes are needed on that article. The argument on the talk page seems to have wandered a bit and it does indeed show that individual primary source studies are being suggested as references and your own (or other's) interpretations or analysis of them are being used. Don't. Per WP:RS/MC: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I don't think that is happening in that discussion. Also...everyone needs to stop talking down to each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already left a message on Viriditas' talk page but your behavior will be looked at as well and I do think there was some baiting going on and a little bit of "I don't hear you". Look, it wasn't sweet roses but it wasn't a personal attack in my view but a rather odd analogy with terms you simply zoned in on. Tell me...do you really think he was calling you a chicken fucker?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't think your message on Viriditis's userpage, in which you tell Viriditis that you "agree with him entirely", think his "chicken fucking" insult was "hilarious", and that he is "free to ignore" your tentative advice to edit himself was helpful. It only encourages disruptive behavior. It also seems unfair to the other participants in this discussion, because your language here strongly implies that you admonished Viritis, but the language of thea actual note borders on encouraging him. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't referring to me since he made the statement on the 11th and I had never commented on that talk page until the 12th ... Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly more eyes are needed on that article, and I encourage people to edit it, including yourself, so that's it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Now you draw a comment, this time, about the Marinol section. I know nothing about Marinol before, my comments have not been about it, and I am not particularly interested in learning more about it (if there is something big in the USA about Marinol; I'm not American). My issue was with the myocardial infraction content related to cannabis. I have never edited the Marinol section nor proposed edits to that section so it is of no relevance to me. My comment "edit looks good" is in reference to: .

I have not proposed any changes to the article as of yet, nor have I made any changes to the article ever. I'm perfectly capable of being reasoned with, and if someone can dig out secondary sources they think are better from the literature I'm perfectly happy with that. I haven't made up my own mind what the article sections should look like. That is why I notified wikiproject medicine to hopefully attract some medical editors who would be more aware of the best sources in the literature: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cannabis. I highlighted a section of a peer reviewed article (the part of the paper which describes the literature generally), and some others that may be relevant and all of which had a decent level of citations (~50-60 from google scholar) which I had obtained through Google scholar. I think my editing history shows that I don't have some sort of secret ideology against cannabis (in fact I'm in favour of the legalisation of and taxation of cannabis, but that doesn't mean that this scientific literature shouldn't be accurate summarised with regards to heart attacks). The criticisms being thrown around by Viriditas are that there is a conspiracy (read his comments) within the literature itself followed by lots of invective. Constant claims of conspiracy amongst reliable sources, and ceaseless hostility are behaviour issues. Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...the section this entire transaction took place in is the "Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality" section of the talk page. If this is your claim: "I have not heard of Marinol before and am not particularly interested in learning more about it " then I suggest you stop further discussion in that section and leave it to those who are interested in the subject in question. I am sure you are a reasonable editor and you do seem highly intelligent...I just don't think you know what you are doing and where you are doing it at, at the moment. I really don't know what else to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the section heading but not what I discussed (I don't think I have commented in that section about Marinol at all), there are two edits under discussion as far as I can see 1. 2. . My comments are related to the later, not the former. I see well cited papers about THC generally, cannabis specifically, in the area of myocardial infarction. It seems there is some weight to mention something about this. I responded to claims of conspiracies about these sources and that I am a bad skeptic etc. It is unreasonable to have people respond to peer reviewed sources with claims about conspiracies etc. Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there's a bad astronomer, so why can't you be the "bad skeptic"? Think about it: major street cred, hot chicks/guy magnet, whatever. It's a bit sexier than "Second Quantization" (you don't get out much, do you?) Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Scientists who study cannabis in the U.S. are only able to get permission if their study results show something negative about cannabis, no matter how contrived. Researchers who want to study positive aspects, such as the benefits of medical cannabis, have been blocked by bureaucratic processes run by agencies who want to keep the drug illegal and classified as lacking medical value. I gave you a link to today's Los Angeles Times article up above as a source. This is common knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were/are alleging a conspiracy amongst journals, not a lack of funding into medical applications. Second Quantization (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to this I suggest you create a separate section for "cannabis / myocardial infarction " and then I am requesting that you copy paste the exact sections of the source that I presume are journal articles and not individual studies as it is clearly being challenged and I myself cannot access the source. Accessibility of a source is not a requirement, but since it is being directly challenged you are required to show exactly what passages are being summarized and how the sources are being used. This may not settle your distress about the editor, but I feel it is the source of the issue as you have explained it and I for one want that settled as clearly it is at the center of this. Don't hurry or anything. I'm outa here for the rest of the day and will be returning later this evening.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Mark, I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone came here asking you to immerse yourself in the content dispute, but simply Mark, if I could redirect here, I believe the main point is to address disruptive editing. The timeline, from my POV at least, looks like this:

1) I noticed a section in the article that claimed that smoking cannibis was safer than using Marinol. The supporting reference was a FIA document in which cannabis activist group asked the FDA for Adverse Event Reporting System data on deaths from Marinol. The document stated that five deaths had been reported, and pointedly stated that these were merely case reports, and no conclusions could be drawn regarding causation. Since the supporting reference was simply case reports, I deleted the comment.

2) Viriditas reverted my edit, offering "Nothing is being compared. It is a documented fact that high does of Marinol lead to death. It is also a documented fact that high doses of cannabis /does not/. End of story, no comparison was made." as his only explantion.

3) As his explanation for the reversion was did not address my explanation for the edit (He simply insisted that the inadequately sourced statement was true), and he did not engage on the Talk page, I undid his reversion and explained myself on the Talk page.

4) Viriditas responded by calling my arguments "bullshit", reiterating his claim that "high doses of marinol kill people", once again not addressing the sourcing issue, and called me a "chicken fucker". I think if you will read his response again, you'll agree that it was pointlessly insulting, and that it once again completely failed to address the explanation for my edit. I pointed out that it was a non-MEDRS citation and could not be used per the source itself to prove marinol "kills people". He simply insisted that marinol does kill people and insulted me.

5) At this point (to be honest, I was pissed at his behavior), I went to the literature and dug into some of the issues behind the safety of smoking cannabis. Its quite possible that my motivations at this point were somewhat vindictive, but it is also very clear at this point that there is a basis for a content discussion about including this material in the article. Viriditas has responded to every attempt to rationally discuss this by engaging in personal insults and other disruptive behavior.

From my point of view, we can handle the content dispute among ourselves so long as everyone debates in good faith and treats each other with respect. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard my position on the issue of cannabis toxicity with skepticism. It is also possible that I am guilty of baiting Viriditas to some extent. But nobody likes to be called a ignorant, a chicken fucker, or to have their painstaking efforts at literature review summarily dismissed as "bunk. Give it up and go home". Nor can one reason with such a person and achieve consensus.

I respectfully request that you I think the main thing is that we address the behavior issue here. Once that is done, we can settle the content dispute among ourselves. If you want to block me for a few days for my role in this, that's fine, I'll take my punishment. But order needs to be re-established if Misplaced Pages is not to become a version of Lord of the Flies.

If the content dispute is to be discussed here, I'd like to make the point once again that unlike marinol, cannabis (as least in the smoked form) is not an FDA approved drug, and has not been through the usual clinical development process. While MEDRS generally indicates that the best sources are meta analyses of phase 3 trials, no phase 3 trials have been performed on smoked cannabis. Nor have phase 2 trials. If we are not going to include any remarks on the potential risks of smoking marijuana in the article, because the sources fall short of the aforementioned standard, then we really shouldn't be saying anything about it's potential benefits either, as these lie on equally shaky ground. And then we will not have an article at all other than the chemical structure of THC. On the other hand, if mainstream opinion expressed in review articles is that marijuana may be useful for epilepsy, and may increase one's risk of heart attack, it may be reasonable to include both of these mainstream views in the article, even if both are based on weak underlying data. Someday large randomized clinical trials will be performed, but for now, the data available is all there is. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. "Keep fucking that chicken" means "keep up the great work", it does not mean "keep having sex with animals". Look it up yourself. And try to read for context. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry V., I'm an old man and do not keep up with the latest slang. And in particular, the following comments seem to support that your comment had a less benign intent than you are claiming above. How do any of the following comments support concensus building?

Frame it anyway you want out of context, but there is no consensus that cannabis causes the strokes and heart attacks you are proposing, which is precisely the problem. You're only as old as you feel. I feel about 1,500 years old, if that makes you feel any better. When I was a kid, we kindled fire and hunted buffalo, and we liked it. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job.

• Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up.

• You're content to cite political propaganda as fact

• But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense.

• Someone is vastly ignorant in this discussion, and it isn't me

• At what point did you stop critically evaluating the medical literature and start accepting it without question?

• Don't let little things like facts get in the way of reality. You seem to be ignorant about a great deal.

• Sorry, we're not buying the usual round of bullshit. Sell your pharmaceutical snake oil elsewhere.

• Your argument from ignorance stinks.

• Unbelievable. You actually appear to be ignorant of the most demonstrable medical conspiracy of the 20th century

Please sign you comments. I am losing track of who is saying what here. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The bulleted items above are quotes from Viriditis in the discussion on the tetrahydrocannibinol Talk page and were posted here by me. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, taken completely out of context by you. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why don't you tell us then exactly what context justifies calling a fellow editor a "chicken fucker", repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant", making personal attacks, and the like? In particular, how does it help build consensus and make the editing process more effective? Formerly 98 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were not called a "chicken fucker", and I've already answered this above at 06:43, 14 March 2014. Furthermore, you have made no effort to build a consensus of any kind. You reverted two different editors and then quickly injected POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes. If you were trying to build consensus, you would have reverted once and then quickly gone to the talk page to discuss it. You didn't do that. You reverted two different editors twice without discussion because you felt that they were unfairly representing a synthesized THC product produced by the pharmaceutical industry to replace cannabis, a product that doesn't work and has been implicated in multiple deaths, according to the sources. As an act of revenge editing, you then proceeded to add without consensus the statement that cannabis is associated with heart attacks and strokes, a statement that has poor evidence to support it and is highly controversial. At no point did you ever make an edit based on any kind of consensus, so please stop claiming that you did. You engaged in outright POV pushing, removing negative material about a pharmaceutical product intended to replace cannabis while adding speculative, negative material about cannabis in its place. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, my reverts were within the rules described at WP:BRD. And I clearly was active on the Talk page, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

• You're back to the disruptive editing behavior of insisting that "Marinol kills people", arguing off-topic from the actual issue, which is that the supporting reference was not MEDRS compliant. If you find a MEDRS compliant source for that statement, you can add it to the article, and I'll be the first to defend your right to do so, as long as you do so in a way that does not involve making comparisons that are not supported by the data.

• I've freely admitted here that a small part of my motivation for continuing to dig into the cardiovascular AE profile of cannabis after that first exchange was that I was angry. (But you'll notice that the sentence I added describes "possible association" and does not go beyond the strength of the supporting evidence.) I apologize and will endeavor to do better in the future. You, however, are still insisting on your right to behave abusively to other editors. That's where the problem lies and what we would like to see changed. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What is this, an episode of Fringe? Quick, someone tell Walter that Formerly 98 has crossed over from the other side where in his alternative world, BRD means revert-revert-POV push-without discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I became curious about the surprising claim that "fucking the chicken" means "keep up the good work", so I Googled it. The phrase originates from something newscaster Ernie Anastos said to another person who misspoke on air, and Anastos did compare the phrase to "keep up the good work", but he was making the comparison sarcastically, not as a compliment. It is a sarcastic phrase applied to someone who has put their foot in their mouth in public. Here's a link: . Now if you look at the context of the diff in which Viriditas said it, it's obvious that he is not saying it as a compliment, and it becomes equally clear that his attempt here to re-frame it as a sincere statement of "keep up the good work" is not accurate. It is clearly a confrontational use of a phrase that is either (depending on one's cultural inclinations) vulgar or blunt. It is not conduct that helps move a discussion towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Formerly 98 had no consensus to edit war and revert two different users. Formerly 98 had no consensus to add controversial content claiming cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Yet you are here complaining about me not helping move a discussion towards consensus? Crazy. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. I don't think you'll find "edit-warring" defined as "any edit that Veritis disagrees with", as it seems to be used here.

You didn't engage in BRD at all. You blanket reverted two different editors and then added controversial content, without consensus. But somehow, this is my problem? Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the unsigned comment is from Formerly 98, and I'm replying, instead, directly to Viriditas' reply to me, but more to communicate with administrators watching here, than simply to him. I don't know whether Formerly 98 had consensus or not. My comment was about Viriditas' use of the phrase "fucking the chicken", and his subsequent assertion here at ANI that he was merely telling Formerly 98 to "keep up the good work". I suggest that administrators evaluate for themselves whether or not Veriditas' new comment is consistent with any of the following: sincerely saying "keep up the good work", showing an understanding of the complaints of editors here, showing an understanding of the reasons for the previous block, or helping move discussions towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

• I'm not here to get involved in the THC content discussion, but as for the aggression noted in the opening post, there is also and . Those personal attacks were not justified by what came before, and took place well after Mark Miller's advice: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you at all. I've said that the reason I've ignored you for the last year (almost) is because I think you are intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, you've been following me all over the place trying to get my attention. And the reason I've said you're intellectually dishonest is because you deliberately violated WP:SYN last year to push a POV, and when I confronted you with it, you dismissed it by giving me a "these aren't the droids you are looking for" line of bullshit. I called you on it then and I'm calling you on it now. An admin should not be defending and promoting the violation of our core policies. Block away. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• After looking at the diffs Tryptofish posted above, I am certain I do not see "personal attacks". Frankly, I see candid discourse – and I see Viriditas' part as the rebuttal of what came before it.—John Cline (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

John, is your assessment of the comments I posted above the same as those cited by Tryptofish? Maybe I'm being Miss Manners here, but I did not think this language was helpful in consensus building. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building? You mean your two reverts and injection of POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes—without any discussion? Is that the consensus building you are talking about? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to this aboveFormerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I've noted that the rules of BRD are different in this dimension. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In reality, I have never said anything remotely like "these aren't the droids you are looking for", even allowing that it might be some sort of paraphrase instead of a direct quote. In the time between Viriditas' return from his block and the message here that I left on Thargor's talk page, my interactions with Viriditas have been zero. Zero. If I'm incorrect, find the diffs. Otherwise, the comments above are exercises in fiction (and pretty bizarre at that).

It's an unfortunate situation that, in Misplaced Pages today, editors who have been contributing content over a long period of time can get away with stuff that would get a new editor blocked in a nanosecond. It's a real double standard, and a regrettable one. Despite what one member of Viriditas' fan club says here, the diffs I've provided are about as clear a violation of NPA as anyone is ever going to see. Some civility issues are ambiguous; this isn't one of those. I don't really care about blocking Viriditas. I care about getting him back into acceptable conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments directed at you Trypto were NOT personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were, in any reasonable interpretation, but that comment reinforces my point about a fan club. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no fan club. Mark and I used to fight like cats and dogs, but we learned to respect each other and now we ask each other for guidance and help. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Then it is unfortunate that you did not heed his guidance here: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have, and I don't believe I asked you for your opinion. I did ask you to give up your obsession with me and what has now turned into a bizarre form of fan fiction. You've created and perpetuated this framed narrative of who I am and what I do that does not exist anywhere in reality. Pretty sad, really. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Given the tiresome task of explaining the metaphor of the Jedi mind trick in relation to what you actually said (of course you never actually said anything about droids, my gosh), I would much prefer a block. I keep forgetting the cardinal rule: never, ever use a metaphor on Misplaced Pages. Tryptofish, you did show up in multiple discussions where I was involved, and while it is true that you did not interact with me directly, you interacted in those discussions, which to me, means you are trying to get my attention. Misplaced Pages is a big place, just try to avoid me. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess learning a lesson about metaphor use is a start, especially if it is followed by learning another lesson about the use of insults. And I suppose it's a tiny bit of progress that we have gone from "you've been following me all over the place" to "it is true that you did not interact with me directly". But still no diffs! Trying to get his attention? How? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not this shit again. You and Thargor have been trying to troll the fuck out of me recently. In December, Thargor was trolling my contribs and decided to nominate an obscure article I created for deletion, at which point you showed up to play good cop bad cop. Between then and now, you've showed up on my watchlist quite a bit. Thargor most recently stalked me to Abby Martin, where he began to disrupt the page. Then, in a discussion related to that disruption, you showed up on surprise, surprise, Thargor's talk page. Both of you cannot seem to get over your obsession with me, and you both seem to just "show up" on random pages out of the blue trying to get my attention. Isn't it time you stopped trolling? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about those two specific articles. I could argue that your conduct in pushing fringe scientific theories warrants a monitoring of your activities, but I really don't have the time or energy for that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you've been targeting my contribution list and more specifically, my edits, outside of any talk page. For example, several days ago, you nominated Radioio for deletion. The only reason you did this was out of WP:REVENGE because I had added a link to an interview by Radioio on the Abby Martin article. Your continuing disruption of Misplaced Pages is part of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS behavior I documented last week on this same noticeboard. And, you seem to have a lot of time and energy for this, as it's all you've been doing for several weeks now. And since I've never pushed fringe scientific theories anywhere on Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid you're just making stuff up again. As I've said before, please stop using guidelines like WP:FRINGE as an excuse to disrupt Misplaced Pages and violate NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that I found the Radioio article via the Abby Martin one, which I found via your talk page that I follow. You can make all the accusations you want, but they have no basis in fact and are not helping your case at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been disrupting Abby Martin with WP:DISRUPTSIGNS behavior while nominating articles for deletion due to WP:REVENGE editing—all because I am the author of the article and I am the editor who added the link to Radioio. You've even admitted it. How is this not factual? At what point are you going research and write an article instead of hounding and harassing editors you disagree with? Oh, but I'm the one with the problem, right? Of course, because I object to your disruption, so therefore, I must be the one causing the problem, eh? What kind of twisted nonsense is this? It's like the beginning of this entire thread. Because I object to Formerly 98 edit warring and adding controversial material, I must be the one causing the problem with my "aggressive" behavior? Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not disrupting any articles, not nominating anything out of revenge (you're simply not that important to me, sorry), and I didn't check the contributions to see who added what, I merely followed a link I hadn't seen before to an article that looked like this and, after some significant searching, had only press releases for sources. This paranoia needs to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You disrupted multiple articles, one of which you admittedly found by watching my contributions, after which you made a bad faith nomination of one of the links I added for deletion, and then tendentiously tried to remove multiple links in the article over and over again. This is all covered in WP:REVENGE and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which perfectly describes your behavior. Frankly, your denial here is pathetic. I'm convinced that all you do is follow people around and harass them. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My good faith is waning. I haven't disrupted any articles (complaints of disruption do not make such claims true), I found *zero* by "watching your contributions" (the Abby Martin article I found, again, because your talk page is watchlisted as I've contributed there in the past). I did try to remove some links a couple times as they did not (and still don't) conform to our guidelines. I'm sorry that the truth of the matter is much less sexy than you're making it out to be, but this is getting to be extremely paranoid. You've been back from your block for months, and because I found two of your articles that people posted about on your talk page, I'm following you all over the place. I wish I had the time it would take to do half of what you accuse me of. I'm not going to continue going back and forth on crazy ravings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, your editing meets 5 of the 6 criterions for disruption at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS as well as WP:REVENGE. You followed me to Abby Martin to disrupt the further reading section and the talk page, and after I added a citation to Radioio, you nominated it for deletion. That is the truth of the matter. You don't research or write articles. You just follow people around and harass them. Furthermore, your bad behavior is enabled by several editors and admins who deflect your disruption onto users who complain about it, and accuse them of "aggression" when they see bad edits being made and their valuable time being wasted. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Finally, some links have been cited by someone other than me, so that's good. So, let's examine Viriditas' claims, and whether or not there is evidence behind them. First of all, Thargor Orlando and I are two different editors. I take no responsibility for his conduct, and I'm only discussing my own conduct here.

• Here is what Viriditas claims about me here: What I am saying is "shit". I am a troll, and I am "trying to troll the fuck out of recently". By "recently", we are discussing what has happened since Viriditas returned from his block, last November. What is the evidence of that?

• The first example provided by Viriditas is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect. It's true that I have watchlisted Viriditas' user talk ever since he was blocked last year (not posting there during the time after his block, just observing), and that is neither trolling nor disruptive, but rather to be expected following the things that he said to me, that led to his block. So I saw this: , and this: . It appeared, on the basis of those two notifications, to be a big enough dispute that I was curious to see what it was. So I looked at the AfD, and it turned out to relate to subjects of human intelligence that relate to my editing interests (and expertise) in neuroscience, so I decided to comment. You can follow the link to see what I ended up saying there. I didn't address Viriditas directly at any point. I mostly disagreed with Thargor. I think that my contributions to that discussion were constructive and well within policy. So what is the evidence that I was playing "good cop bad cop"? What is the evidence that I was acting as a troll?

• The second example is my comment at Thargor's talk page. I had watchlisted that page the same time that I watchlisted Viriditas' page, because it was all part of the same dispute. Since that time, I stopped watchlisting Thargor, because it no longer appeared relevant to me. But I did see what is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Thargor Orlando, and the fact that I look from time to time at ANI is pretty far from trolling Viriditas. And I never commented at that ANI thread. If I were so obsessed with Viriditas or so in conspiracy with Thargor, it's pretty surprising that I wouldn't have shown up there. I watched the discussion, but did not take part in it. But I then started also watchlisting Thargor's talk again. And I saw this: , which caught me up short, because it had been I who reported Viriditas to the administrator who blocked him. Next there was this: , which was directly about the reasons for that previous block. Please note: numerous editors were accused of being paid editors working for Monsanto or the like, and it turned out to be completely false. Then, there was this: and this: . Now here's the diff within that second diff, and it's worth seeing the tone of what was there: . And here is Viriditas' reaction: . Notice how his argument is based upon his not having used either the word "paid" or the word "shill". Compare that to his actual words in the diff Thargor cited, and compare it to what I quote below from the administrator who blocked Viriditas (and, for that matter, compare it to Viriditas' complaints in this ANI discussion about editors taking what he said too literally). So I said this: , which also criticizes Thargor. And I was met by and , which brought me to here. So you see, Viriditas was already accusing me of "trying to get attention", even though all that came before was that AfD.

• I've made an awful lot of edits during November, December, January, February, and March. So, over all that time, what is the evidence that I have been trying to "troll the fuck out of" Viriditas? Those two links appear to be Viriditas' entire claim. And what does all of this say about him? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

erm ... Using the phrase you did is not an innocent metaphor as you now seem to assert, and you ought to have owned up to it in the first place. Your demeanour is, at this point, worse than Andy the Grump's. Say you are not "personally attacking" someone and then calling them "intellectually dishonest" might cause any outsider's eyebrows to rise. Misplaced Pages says we use "reliable sources" even if we "know" they are not the "truth." You see -- Misplaced Pages is not about the editors - it is only about what sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Erm" right back at you. "These are not the droids you are looking for" can be nothing but a metaphor in that context. The user appears to think that this figure of speech is meant literally. My justification for avoiding an editor is not a personal attack, it's my description of their argument that they used to defend WP:SYN. Your use of the word "innocent" here has no meaning nor relevance. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In most places in this world, "droid" is not quite the same with regard to civility as "fucking." Clearly you are not a denizen of a section of society which regards the tenor of the phrase as relevant to how the phrase is seen by outsider. Collect (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

True. As long as you are an arbitrator for Misplaced Pages you can say just about anything and use the "fuck" to your delight and nothing happens but a quick close to the discussion here. LOL! Get the "fuck" over it. I really can't say that Viriditas has a pattern of misusing the word "FUCK". Please demonstrate as much our just "fucking" stop. I see this come up all the time and I am "fucking" sick of it. As for Andy...why bring him up. That is just "fucking" rude and discusses the contributor and not the content. What the "fuck"? what does Andy have to do with this and why drag him into it. If you want to begin naming names here....I have a very long "fucking" list of editors who get away with telling others to "Fuck" off and worse. Shall we go down this road? It is a very long road so I suggest everyone rest up for the hike.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your tone is as culpable as is Viriditas' in that case. I consider your vocabulary to be less than civil, and your tone in that same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You've confused two different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I rather think that is not the case. I read the diffs and the original discussions and find your vocabulary reprehensible. Have a proverbial cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You conflated two different discussion, one about the use of a popular culture reference to chickens and a completely different one about a popular culture reference to Star Wars. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And you will stick to that excuse" no matter what? Like your use of "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid"? AFAICT, that is a specific reference not to "popular culture" but to asserting that the person should commit suicide. Cheers -- but urging suicide is not acceptable ion Misplaced Pages or any online site. Collect (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Collect, it looks like you're confused again. Please read Drinking the Kool-Aid. It has nothing whatsoever to do with suicide at all when used this way. It refers to a person "holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination". In the context of the original discussion, it refers to the belief by the user that Marinol did not hurt anyone and that cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing whatsoever to do with suicide"? Really? The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre, where members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of the Reverend Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide. seems pretty clear to anyone at all -- sorry if you did not know that part of the story. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else in this thread: interpreting "keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid" as "asserting that the person should commit suicide" is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest, and the person making such an intentional misinterpretation should either be ignored, or removed from the discussion, depending on how often they've done games-playing crap like that. Like I said, I make no comment on whether there is a similar problem with other editor(s) involved in this thread. But pretending that this could reasonably be interpreted as an encouragement to commit suicide in this way is intentionally lying. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment but there is some sense in it. Viriditas, would it be possible for you to just say things in normal words, rather than say things like "drink the Kool-aid" and "keep fucking that chicken"? If these phrases mean (to you) "keep up the good work", why not just say it using those words next time? They will be much less likely to cause confusion and offence. We need you to help improve the THC article and I really don't want you to be topic-banned or blocked, which is inevitable if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There is manifestly little support for that proposal below, so I would suggest refraining from further comments along that line for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is duly noted, but I see four supporters beneath my (tentative) suggestion. I confidently predict and maintain that if the user was to continue along the lines he has been, some sort of sanction would become inevitable. This is something I would prefer to avoid, and I think this will be best avoided by Viriditas taking on board some of the feedback given here. --John (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I've read the discussion above. Would a topic ban on Viriditas be helpful, given that this user seems over-invested in the topic to the point where they are cursing at those who do not share their point of view? --John (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Over-invested, as in the fact that I've made approximately two edits to the article in question, one in 2008, and one in 2014? John, considering your most recent conflict with me on John Barrowman and RS/N where consensus was clearly against your disruptive removal of Daily Mail sources, isn't it too soon for you to be exacting revenge on me for scuttling your little campaign? You are clearly not disinterested here, so please stop pretending you are neutral. And for the record, I have "cursed" at nobody. "Keep fucking that chicken" is a euphemism for "keep up the great work". Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You flatter yourself greatly if you think this is about the Daily Mail and your misunderstanding of BLP a few months ago. Here's a question for you. You're obviously a clever guy. Do you think your use of "Keep fucking that chicken" was a wise choice of words? And yes, like it or not, fuck is considered a curse word by most people. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My misunderstanding of BLP? That's a laugh. The community has had to personally intervene multiple times to stop you and correct your gross misunderstanding of BLP. To recap, your erroneous view of BLP was corrected in August 2013, then most notably by 18 editors in October 2013, and then most recently in February 2013 on the Barrowman talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. Is that a record of some kind, John? Talk about being over-invested! I could learn from you... Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Well, if you feel like answering the question, that'll be interesting. If you continue not to answer the question, we will draw our own conclusions from that. So, Viriditas does not want to be topic-banned. Does anybody else who is uninvolved feel it might help, given the user's behaviour? --John (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exact revenge for your failure to win consensus on the BLP dispute we had last month. Block me, topic ban me, I don't care, but I certainly don't think I've deserved either, especially when it's being proposed by an admin still bruised and hurting from his last run-in with me. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you be topic-banned? I would rather see that than a block, for what it's worth, but it's clear you cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on those who are proposing a topic ban, and there is a presumption of innocence on the accused. I should not have to prove otherwise. As for "going on like this", the only reason I'm even participating here is to dispel your false pretense of neutrality. It seems that when you aren't too busy threatening to block people as an involved admin, you're proposing empty topic bans on your enemies. Is that what it takes to be an admin these days? Looks like we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd actually support a block right now per this edit which indicates an ongoing problem with this editor. Failing that, I think a topic ban may be called for. I would be interested in other opinions though. --John (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you need glasses. That diff indicates no "problem" whatsoever. The link shows me making a joke in the spirit of camaraderie by proposing a "sexier" user name similar to the famous skeptic Phil Plait, who uses the term "bad astronomer", where "bad" is used in the sense of "awesome". Plait is generally considered "sexy", in the sense that he's a "bad ass" astronomer. Do you really need to have every joke explained to you? Block away, dude. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about building consensus. Viriditas exhibits a pattern of simply insulting everyone who disagrees with him and insisting that they are wrong, naive, and actively supporting oppression and bad science. If he can modify his behavior, his POV is a good one to have represented here. But I suspect he can't/won't, even in response to sanctions. I think a topic ban is a big step, but I don't see what else to do. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

At what point were you building consensus when you edit warred and reverted two different editors and then added controversial material that claimed cannabis causes heart attacks and strokes? You're POV pushing and telling me I have a problem? That's rich. But please, keep arguing for a block and topic ban. You're bound to fool someone, anyone. Looks like the gang's all here. Congrats on turning a content dispute, where you've edit warred and pushed a biased POV, into a behavioral problem on the guy who caught you with your pants down. You are clearly admin material. Oh, and don't expect John to understand what you mean about "building consensus", as he refuses to recognize consensus. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I find the DM to be RS other than for "contentious claims about living persons", and certainly do not always agree with John, but I suggest he is right that a hiatus from the topic at hand might improve your use of parliamentary vocabulary when dealing with other editors. Attacking John on that unrelated issue, by the way, is quite unlikely to make others take your position as valid, nor is your use of profane expletives indicative of one who seeks consensus rather than confrontation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how anyone could discuss anything at this article while Viriditas launches his pointless insults , straw men, conspiratorial ideation and screeds at any comment . Second Quantization (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a fucking joke. This from someone who follows me to a discussion he knows nothing about and admits he knows nothing about it. How can you participate in a discussion you know nothing about? This is nuts. Yet, here you are, the OP of this thread, successfully distracting from the POV pushing by Formerly 98. Nice work, Second Quantization. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it is time to discuss some sort of sanction, but I'm not sure which "topic" we are discussing here. Is it cannabis? The problem is that Viriditas moves from one topic to another, and when he gets sufficiently annoyed with other editors over a content dispute, he starts to ascribe bad motivations to them, and from there he moves to disruptive behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The trouble is that at this point it is apparent that if a topic ban will not fly, we would have to be looking at a longer block. He just came back from a three-month block; the next would normally be for six months. I would very much rather not see a well-meaning and intelligent editor taken out for that length of time if a topic ban could be as preventive. I also have some sympathy for the proposition that our article on THC is a mess, and desperately needs a cleanup. Its just the manner that Viriditas has adopted that it unhelpful. If he could just cool it, apologise for the fucking the chicken comment (and no, euphemism is not the right word for that), then we could all just get on with things. It seems that this is beyond them at the moment and we are heading for some sort of administrative action, which I would far rather avoid. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're right about my misuse of the word "euphemism". It's an anti-euphemism. Thanks for the correction. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, and I somewhat agree with your desire to avoid losing the good along with the bad. And I infer that, yes, you are talking about "cannabis" as the topic for the topic ban. I'm willing to try it. But I fear that it won't work, for the reasons that I already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume the topic ban would be on "all articles concerning marijuana or health, reasonably construed". Or the Hobson's choice of a six month simple block / Wikication. Collect (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block history

I think that, at this point, it is useful to look back at Viriditas' history over a longer period, and particularly the context, now, for considering a possible block. Here is his block log: . More directly relevant is the rationale for his most recent block, a three-month block from August to November of last year: . I urge administrators looking here to read that diff carefully. It notes a history of successively longer blocks, based partly on edit warring, but based more on:

"persistent assumptions of bad faith, multiple unsubstantiated accusations, and so on and so on: it has mostly been pointed out to you before, so I don't need to go through the full list. One of the most striking features of what I saw was your own apparent blindness to the extent to which you make the very mistakes of which you accuse others. For example, you have repeatedly accused others of WP:IDHT... but you are one of the biggest perpetrators of that error; you accuse others of "making false accusations"... , despite the fact that you have a long and still continuing history of making accusations without substantiation, and in some cases accusations which the simplest checks show are demonstrably false. Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that you appear to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes your position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against you must have ulterior motives."

Viriditas has been back from that block since November. During that time, he has gotten cautions from various editors about resumption of that behavior: , , . The expectation of the community is that an editor returning from a block will learn from the reasons for that block, and do better going forward (and we have lots of good editors who have done just that).

The question now is whether, on the evidence of how Viriditas is replying to other editors in this ANI thread, he has reformed the behaviors that led to past blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, you and I go back years and I generally respect your views, but you have had a running disagreement with Viriditas for some time. This section is unworthy of you, in my view, for a number of reasons but most notably because you fail to mention that fact. As you know I have followed Viriditas and often, but not always, agree with his stands. I don't agree that his blocks have all been what I'd call "justice." This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all. Again, I strongly suggest you redact the above as unworthy of you. Jusdafax 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the discussion here has focused on how to keep him around while getting him to adjust his style. So I'm not clear on how the comment "This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all" is topical. I think we all agree that the style is problematic. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree. Viriditas' style is what it is. It seems to me that the section is pushing a block or other sanctions, given the lack of consensus for a topic ban and the section's title, and personally I feel that remedial action is uncalled for. Viriditas is edgy, as seen above, and has a lower tolerance for certain types of edits than many of us do. That said, he is useful in that he does good work often and is refreshingly candid. Viriditas deserves better than this discussion. I do suggest Viriditas review WP:WQ. In fact, many here, including myself, should. Jusdafax 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that is your answer to years of problematic behaviour? Read WP:WQ? Second Quantization (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I am fully and pointedly staying out of any calls for a topic ban or anything like that because I have a history with Viriditas, but, Jusdafax, I think the double standard complaint is valid in this case. No one is disparaging the work Viriditas puts in. The question is how long we're going to allow a rope to be in this scenario, and the uneven treatment. You, yourself, question Tryptofish's history with Viri as a motive here, yet that same skepticism wasn't welcome when it was Viri attempting to get someone he's had longstanding conflicts with blocked two weeks ago. Viri has written better articles than I'll ever get around to writing here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his contributions amount to a net positive when it comes to issues of fringe science or political topics, for example. Again, I'm neutral on this because there's no way I can possibly be objective, but the apparent double standard is troubling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I salute that neutrality here, TO. You refer, I assume, to the recent calls to block you here, which on reflection appeared unsound to me. I struck my !vote to do so, which I am sorry to see you fail to mention, on deeper consideration of the larger issues. Misplaced Pages, as many have noted, isn't always fair. Viriditas may not attach the same importance to a clean block log that you (I assume) and I do, but I find that his willingness to stand up for what he believes in is inspiring, characterizations aside, and suggest you work to put history aside. I admit it is not always easy, and I have failed myself badly at times. I consider Trypto a friend and feel he can take my views honestly and in good faith. If Misplaced Pages is to continue into the future as a vital, growing project free from feuds, we all must make that effort. Jusdafax 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor, I think you're mistaking "abusive" for "refreshingly candid". We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and most of us take secret pleasure when someone lashes out at a third party whose incomprehensible viewpoint irritates us. But when those of us on the other side of the issue, equally convinced that we are "right", start calling our opponents "morons", telling them they are "ignorant", and dismissing their viewpoint out of hand, it just turns into an ugly free for all. I think you are imagining a world in which those you agree with are "refreshingly candid" and put those other people in their place. But I guarantee you, those other people are just as capable of being rude, hostile, and offensive as those you agree with. It really doesn't work in the long run, and that's why we have WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was Jusdafax, not Thargor, who said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, I'm saddened to find that you feel this way, and I'm going to try to give you a detailed reply. As best I can remember, my first interactions with Viriditas were: , , and . I'm not exactly being hostile there, am I? What you call a "running disagreement" started last year, when I saw an RfC about March Against Monsanto. I went to the talk page there with no agenda. My first two comments there were un-noteworthy; here is the third thing I wrote: . And my fourth: . Shortly later: , , and . I'm not pursuing anything like a disagreement with Viriditas anywhere there! As discussion went on, I began to see nastiness directed mostly at other editors, not at me, but there were things like (lower part), that met my collegial comments with assumptions of bad faith, and that, while seemingly polite, appeared to question my intellect because I had a different opinion. And those examples are very mild, compared to what was directed at other editors, who appeared to me to be acting in good faith, and mild compared to what came later, and led to the block. Jusdafax, it simply is not true that I'm here to push an advantage in some sort of editing disagreement. I'm not currently in any content disagreement with him, anywhere. And, Jusdafax, I'm pretty sure that my first interactions with you were in respect to CDA, where we both agreed that editors who have some sort of track record do not get to get away with things that new editors would be blocked for. I'm trying to stay true to that belief here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, it could be that the four years since our work at WP:CDA (which of course was more about admins and the community, than longstanding content builders having a "civility edge" over "lesser" editors) has given me a more realistic view of the Realpolitik we face here these days. I am aware of the Monsanto diffs and, as you recall, urged a more moderate tone at Viriditas' Talk page back then. To be brief, after warnings he was blocked and he served his time. I ask you to join me in now urging this thread be closed as unproductive. From here on out, it's gonna be more heat than light, and we should agree the issues are noted and agree to move on. Jusdafax 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you are really aware of those diffs, then you have to know that I'm not here to push a personal agenda. I wasn't then, and I'm not now. I stand by what I've said here, and I'm not calling it back. If you look at everything I've said here at ANI, I earlier said that I'm not really interested in getting Viriditas blocked, but more interested in getting him back into good behavior (see above). Since I said that, he has engaged, in his subsequent comments in this discussion, in more of the conduct that got him blocked the last time. In my opinion, the opinion of the blocking administrator, that I quote above, was not at all unjust, but was sound and very thoughtful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You keep trying to frame the opinion of the past blocking admin as a factual narrative, but I find it to be completely erroneous without any basis in fact. The reason you keep trying to frame me as this editor that doesn't exist is indeed, your personal agenda. And that's another reason why I wish to have nothing to do with you. You're very deceptive, on a subtle level that most people would miss. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I probably won't comment here further unless directly necessary, but my comment was not meant to disregard your second look, Jusdafax, but rather just to point out the good faith in one area (where an editor has been blocked repeatedly for the same thing) but not another (when an editor you've barely interacted with, if at all, is accused by someone who has been blocked repeatedly). That's all I mean by double standard, and I raised it with you directly because you've shown me as someone who is willing to revisit issues when necessary. That's all, no offense meant by the line toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I'll be "refreshingly candid" here, but mean no offense: My question is, why have rules at all if you are not going to enforce them? We seem to all agree that the rules have been broken, and that it is a recurring situation. I would suggest there are three possibilities here. 1) We have civility rules and consistently enforce them. 2) We have civility rules and enforce them selectively, depending on whether we "like" or frequently agree with the offender, or other discriminatory criteria. 3) We just get rid of the rules altogether. I'd strongly prefer 1 or 3, each of which pretty much constitutes the old adage of "the law is no respecter of persons". Number 2 has a lot of problems. One of which is that it opens up the system for a lot of abuse. Another is that it breeds contempt for the rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been on the side of 1, as many here know quite well, for many years. I have urged 3, with sardonic intent, at times when I have not gotten the feeling 1 was respected. As I am sure most here are well aware, 2 is operative much of the time. We could debate much further on that, with multiple citations and examples, but I prefer not to. Bottom line: A debate over civility is not what is called for on this page. Again: suggest we close. Jusdafax 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Being new, I'd like to ask a procedural question. If no sanctions are taken against Viriditas as a result of his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, his extension of these violations to this discussion, and his implied declaration that he intends to continue these violations in the future, is it ok for me to assume that I and other editors also have carte blanche to ignore these rules without fear of being blocked or other repercussions? Or would the precedent be editor-specific? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I really believe people are holding grudges and simply take offense to things that are truly taken way out of context because of individual moral standards that are a reaction to as much the other person here then the editor that really...looks like he's getting sharp end of a pointy stick. I seem to remember that I had a run in with Viriditas but that we quickly got over it because...I apologized for my mistakes and he quickly offered the same along with another editor. I'm trying hard to remember, but I think we did it on an Administrators talk page I can't remember...that might have been another editor. I do remember the articles and some of the edit warring and I am embarrassed by my behavior...I sure wouldn't want to be pointing to any of that because my behavior looks worse that theirs looking back on all that. We edit a lot of California subjects and biographies. Has he cussed? Yes. Should he? No. Is it a pattern? Not really. A pattern is something repeated enough to see a pattern, but I just see someone who reacts badly sometimes when he feels he needs to defend himself and I also weigh how bad others may be acting, I know Trypto you have been in heated discussion before, it isn't as if it is a shock. I honestly don't see enough for sanctions. I do see enough that some content disputes could be referred to DR/N and if editors wish, create a RFC/U, but I don't suggest it. If anyone acted as stupid as I know I did when I first reacted to Viriditas...I wouldn't be pointing the community to as shining examples of our behavior.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Before I saw Mark's very thoughtful comment, I was going to reply to Formerly 98 that, even if things don't get resolved here, it's not OK for any of the rest of us to use one editor's bad conduct as an excuse for bad conduct ourselves, and that if they don't get resolved here, this is not necessarily the end of the overall discussion of the disputes. But then I saw what Mark said, and I want to thank him and compliment him for a very good job of helping to lower the temperature, always a good thing to do. What you ask of me, Mark, about whether I might just be taking things too personally based on what came before, and whether I should let go now, is a very good question, and one that I already thought about before you asked it. Yes, I've had heated discussions with other editors in the past, and get along just fine with them now. But I sincerely believe that this is different. What I saw for the first time at the Monsanto dispute was a degree of nastiness and assumption of bad faith that I have never before seen on such a scale from experienced editors. I've seen it from drive-by newbies, and they don't last long, but what I saw here was nastiness returned even when I tried to be friendly. I've already given diffs here of me saying that I agreed with Viriditas about something, followed by him insulting me in return. And look at the way this ANI discussion has gone. Viriditas has had numerous opportunities over several days to say something roughly like that he doesn't entirely agree with the criticisms of him but he is going to make some sort of effort going forward to do something better, or something like that. But instead, quite the opposite. His most recent comments called my concerns about him "shit" and he accused me of being in league with Thargor to "troll the fuck out of" him. There's not much for me to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first let me apologize for the snarky post. It was a weak attempt to remind the "boys will be boys" crowd that incivility and snarkiness are unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.

Second, this is not about agrudge. Its about the future. Those who are admins or philosophical allies of V. dont have to worry about behavior that they will not be on the recieving end of or which they have the power to sanction. But little people like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referrees to do their job. And seeing everyone here agree that the offense not only occurred, but will surely continue, and do nothing tells me never to bother bringing an issue here in the future. And it tells V. to continue or even ramp it up abit.

What can i say. If the rules arent enforced, Misplaced Pages is a much less attractive place to invest time and effort from my pov. Not because of a grudge, butbecause of whst i expect to hsve to put up with in the future. No tilds on my phone Formerly98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Truly, what you said was not snarky. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for responding to Mark here, hard as hell to scroll thru hundreds of lines on my phone. Just want to say no one is proposing crucifixion. I just dont want to see him get a complete pass on this as it encourages more of the same. An apology would 100% suffice. Formerly98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"eople like myself have no recourse other than to ask the referees..." I truly believe everyone can referee themselves and should try. Everyone including Viriditas, but from where I come from, I already know they are capable of getting over the dispute no matter how ugly it may have gotten. Now you just have to ask your self if you really can get over the heat of the discussion and center of really moving forward. I make no suggestion how you can do that, jut that I started with..."Sorry, for my part...".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's bad enough that you won't do anything about the situation, worse that you went to V's page and encouraged his behavior, and now you're going to suggest that I apologize. We clearly have very different value systems and I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Won't do anything? I left a message to Viriditas about this...once, but other than that, I am not a administrator and I don't have a problem with them. They've always been very helpful with content even when we weren't on good terms. I think they are a net plus to the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"I think they are a net plus to ...", I think that is why you'd never support action no matter what he did, you work closely with him in some areas. You've presumably never encountered him when he tries to push his views like he did at GM related articles for example and got blocked. Most defences I've seen of Viri have been along ideological grounds or "I work with him and he's fine" type reasoning. I presume this is why you tried to derail the initial thread by continually making posts related to content issues instead of the behaviour issues. If this was any other editor behaving the way he was, they'd already be blocked. Second Quantization (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An offer

As a possible alternative to either a topic ban, a block, or further pursuit of the dispute resolution process, let me put the following on the table. Perhaps Viriditas will offer something about his intended conduct going forward from now. I expect that he won't want to follow my advice, so I'm not going to specify anything about what he might say. But I would much prefer that he be able to resume good editing without the bad conduct, instead of a block, so I'd like to hear how he responds to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, stop following me around. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on a person who seems to be on your side is one of the best ways known to man to make them less willing to proffer much o anything. "Verb. sap." applies here and I think you would be well-advised to consider that offer. Collect (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish has consistently created a false narrative that portrays me in a negative light. He's been personally promoting this negative narrative for almost a year based on information that has never been substantiated or verified and amounts to rumor and gossip. He is not on my side. This is a personal vendetta for him. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I now am convinced you have jumped the proverbial shark here, and absolutely need a Wikication of some sort. You see "enemies" around every corner and are loathe to accept that your wording choices have been "unfortunate" at best, and thus a Wikication of a year or two might even be proposed. That everyone is on a vendetta against me is not precisely the sort of attitude which is reasonable for an editor following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close

It's now been six days since this was raised. I don't see any other problematic edits from Viriditas in the meantime. I do see a consensus that Viriditas ought to tone down the rhetoric. It would be lovely if Viriditas was to acknowledge that here or somewhere else. I don't see that they are going to, and I also don't think any admin action is currently required. If there are other issues here, content issues can be addressed via article talk or RfC, and if other editors are exacerbating things that needs to be raised separately. I would propose that we now close this discussion with a firm request that Viriditas keep the rhetoric dialled down in future, and that any repetition will be considered blockworthy. Would anyone (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)object to this? --John (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree in part with John. This discussion is not approaching consensus, and clearly will not get there. I'm personally disappointed that flagrant repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, defiance in the face of attempts to address these violations, and what appears to me to be an open statement of intent to continue to engage in these violations will have no consequences, and thus will almost certainly continue if not escalate in the future. I'm further disappointed that this decision has been heavily influenced by an admin who described V's use of the phrase "fucking that chicken" as "hilarious".

As a result of these multiple violations of the Formerly_98 terms of service, including but not limited to wasting my time F98:WMFT, egregious politics (F98:BS, and generally inequitable treatment (F98:FAIR), I'm placing Misplaced Pages on a 30 day block.Formerly 98

Just so you know, the editor who said it was "hilarious" is not an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I came right out and stated on this thread that I am not an admin and cannot block editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This smacks very much of being the I don't like Viriditas club, hoping this would be the last round of public shaming, resulting in some punishment. Instead this will inevitably be just the latest round, and will be mined for naughty remarks to use in the next pillory effort. It would be nice if WP:Civil were enforced, but would require an appearance of doing so evenly, and the ramifications may be dire for others involved. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've pretty much summed up the way I feel in the section just above, so, while I'm not actively arguing for closing, I certainly have no objection. I think that John is correct in his advice to Viriditas to "tone down the rhetoric". I would quibble with John that the situation is not so much one of no administrative action being needed, as no administrative action going to happen, and I think that's sad. I strongly endorse John's conclusion that "any repetition will be considered blockworthy". And I think there is a clear consensus that no repetition would be the best outcome going forward, an outcome that would be welcomed by everyone, including me. Based on what has (not) happened here, I am skeptical about the actual likelihood of a future block if needed, however. Paradoxically and regrettably, if this dispute does end up moving up the dispute resolution ladder, the end result may be a site ban instead of a block, so that's a compelling reason to follow John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support This may just be the thing to stop his preposterous Behavior of Swearing and Being Highly uncivil. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Close as no some consensus. Clearly John feels that there is enough consensus to see that the editor "ought to tone down the rhetoric". I would support a simple note to the editor in that manner but do not agree the consensus deserves a further warning.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  Consensus does not have to be unanimous. I accept that there is no consensus to block at this time, but surely there is consensus about some of John's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. I won't object if the outcome is a consensus to request the editor refrain from such behavior, but I will not accept that there is any consensus for such to be block worthy or Beeblebrox and Eric Corbet wouldn't be here. I do not like or approve of double standards. Either we block them all and let god (or the deity of your choice) sort it out...or we just don't block for this type of thing. Period. Sorry. I know that is not much help...but why should this be any different? 'll respect and support any decision John makes, but I am very concerned that we have such a differing level of Wikipedian who can resort to this type of behavior and it is acceptable and then have others who do the exact same thing and get blocked. I don't have an issue with either Beeble or Eric and I don't have an issue with Viriditas.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not at all happy (I know...nobody cares) that User:Bishonen used a secondary account to create this thread. When you request other admin to intervene on your behalf against another editor and that editor feels there is a personal vendetta against them....this does NOT make it look better. I am sure I am going to regret this...but I am requesting that User:Bishonen reply here to answer why they made this request under a secondary account I now see they have requested be blocked. I am sure there is a perfectly acceptable explanation...I would just appreciate knowing what it is. .--Mark Miller (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me.. what? That's a rather unexpected tree you're barking up. I haven't posted anything in this thread, from any account. It'll be a cold day in hell before Darwinbish posts on ANI. Did you think User:Second Quantization was mine..? But why? It's the user who used to be known as IRWolfie-, and he has changed his account name in the most proper way; it's not a secondary account. He's on break now, yes. It's not necessary to discuss self-requested blocks publicly on ANI. :-( I try to perform them discreetly, but I guess it was not to be in this case. Anything else? Bishonen | talk 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

Got it. You were the blocking admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And, lest there be further confusion, not the admin who blocked Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel Johns advice should be followed becuse 1.) consensus Concludes that this should happen, and 2.) If we say that he will be blocked if he does it again, he knows that this is his Last Chance, kind of like WP:ROPE. Except that there was no block. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see consensus for toning it down, I see no consensus to warn of a future block. Look, I like a lot of these editors, but something else that is being shown in this discussion is that there are editors gunning for Viriditas that DO hold a grudge and I don't think they are best to be forming a consensus. The discussion didn't really garner a large pool of contributors, but mostly just editors that are pissed off at them for one reason or another. I do support mentioning to Viriditas that they should tone down the aggression but don't feel a warning should be given at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, based on what you said directly above, and also a few lines above, I do understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for distinguishing between a consensus to recommend changes in behavior, which exists, and consensus to establish a formal warning about a future block, which I accept that you strongly oppose. I think that's reasonable, under the circumstances. I rather expect that, were there to be such a warning, most admins would be afraid to enforce it, for the same reasons that they have been afraid to step in and block this time. After all, there already was such a warning in the previous block rationale. This is simply something that the community will not be able to resolve. But I also want to object, in part, to your framing of "editors gunning for" him. There are probably some such editors, but it's an oversimplification to paint everyone who has expressed concerns here with such a broad brush. And as for editors who are "pissed off", I'm seeing that frame of mind on both sides of the discussion. And, after some amount of insults and assumptions of bad faith, it's not unreasonable for editors on the receiving end to be resentful, or to take note when the same behavior emerges again. And that's all the more reason why there ought to be at least a consensus that "toning it down" is recommended going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article

There has been some non-conclusive discussion over some sources on the Jung Myung Seok / Providence article. This article has been brought up here on the WP:ANI page a couple times before, but the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled. More recently, 12 third party news sources and 4 direct quotes of the organization’s founder have been removed without much discussion. You can see the removed content in this revert . The article has two editors immediately removing the content and two editors arguing that the material should at least be up for discussion. The last admin to really get involved with the article, Richwales, gave some useful advice for the article and even did the work to verify some of these sources , but much of the content following his suggestions keeps getting removed. He has since removed himself for being too wp:involved. If we could have some more editors take a look at the material in contention perhaps we could make some progress on this article. Macauthor (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailors removal of the 12 sources and direct quotes also restored sourced content deleted/whitewash? by Macauthor here Much of the editing on the article appears to be whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute, as "the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled" could seem to indicate, or is it a follow up on your remarks here where you say I am inserting pornographic material in the article, and that you believe my editing is contentious and in supposedly violation of WP:NPOV, which I have asked you to bring up for community discussion? Either or, as I in my reply on the article talk page, in this edit, have argued the case quoting guidelines and policies, I'd apreciate if you did the same here.

Uninvolved editors trying to grasp the situation in Providence (religious movement) should be aware, that MrTownCar (t c) has disclosed that both he and Macauthor (t c) are members of this movement. Best, Sam Sailor 13:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I said that it had the appearance of contentious editing and I was pointing out that you had only commented on the pornographic source without discussing the other sources. I apologize if I offended you but the real issue here is whether the content being discussed is valid, if or how much of it is white washing, or whether it is informative to keep all or some of the content in the article. I feel that it is holding the article back to keep reverting to previous versions that do not include more recent events about the subject. Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar (talk · contribs) may speak for himself but he does not speak for me. He disclosed that he is a member which is clearly Misplaced Pages:COI and his edits have not always been sourced very well, but his knowledge of the movement may be of some use. Do you have an opinion on the material you have removed? Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page, and would be facilitated had the two SPAs not retorted to accusations on the second lowest level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement without substantiating them the least bit quoting guidelines and policies. Despite being asked to.

What does belong here is a discussion of the long-term tendentious editing we have witnessed on Jung Myung Seok and now on Providence (religious movement) (the former was recently merged into the latter). Previously this has been brought up in e.g.

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page, and
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Jung Myung Seok.

Yes, large amounts of contents with challenges related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS have been added to and removed from the article for years (long before I started watching it in October 2013), and has been discussed in length on Talk:Jung Myung Seok and has been up for discussion on e.g.

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?,
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive169#Jung Myung Seok, and
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Use of unverified or planted references in article about Jung Myung Seok.

To put it briefly, the hallmark of Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) is to stick in various amounts of apologetic material casting doubt about the fairness of Jung's two convictions of rape and his 10-year prison sentence, and material questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of their testimonies, while at the same time removing material critical to Jung. Prompting Drmies to say I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. ... I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. A few examples out of hundreds: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff. Among the reverting/restoring editors I see e.g. Shii, ukexpat, Ravensfire, Lectonar, Richwales, Harizotoh9, Drmies, and myself.

When the two editors continued editing in January and February, including a SOAP edit like this deleting sourced content at the same time, and in apparently perfect English translation of a Korean source add:

Template:Sure?

then I find that Harizotoh9's revert one day later was well done and well within BRD. Harizotoh9 followed up by posting three new talk page sections with his concerns. Macauthor responded to none of them, but posted their own new section suggesting Harizotoh9 to ask before you remove content (WP:OWN), before Macauthor reverted back to their latest prefered version. And here is where I come in the following day first posting my comments on the talk page, then reverting clearly indicating WP:BRD in my edit summary to get the dialogue going and avoid warring.

Since bans have already been mentioned in previous ANI threads, I suggest other editors chime in with their opinions on the situation. Best, Sam Sailor 20:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

how loquacious sam you spent most of your reply rehashing what is well known. I wish you spent a quarter of that time answering valid question put for to you.... if I may take a quote from you "So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page" Macauthor and I have repeatedly asked on the article talk page and your personal talk page for explanation of your reversions which you have yet to address two weeks after this last set of reversions. Please spare us the pontification and answer macauthors question posted on your talk page and feel free to show us what independent research you have done on the subject matter the way richwales did in the past.MrTownCar (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

seems all the diffs except one had nothing to do with me.MrTownCar (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any suggestion by Sam Sailor that he has taken the time to carefully review the material posted by Macauthor. I am sorry no neutral sysop is weighing in on this.MrTownCar (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"You can see the removed content in this revert "

Part of the information in the above diff is cited to various providence related sites. I first came to the Jung page in late 2012 because I found that it was relying upon unreliable primary sources by the Providence religion and was poorly written. Myself and others have been trying to remove these sources. For instance here we see User:Shii remove the sources in December 2012. But MrTownCar and Macauthor continue to insert them. I am completely opposed to these sources on numerous grounds.

• They are not WP:RS
• Violate WP:BLP
• WP:ABOUTSELF - These sources make claims about Jung's biography which are contested and need other sources to confirm, and are not simple uncontested claims.

This is completely ridiculous that we are still arguing and debating this to this day.

Moving past that, there are some elements of a content dispute to this as well. But the best place for that is WP:BLPN and other places. Not here. I am not that familiar with the sources, the language, with the subject matter, etc. I'm going to ask Wikiproject Korea as well to see if anyone there can assist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the sites I object to are:

• gospelofprovidence.com
• providencetrial.com
• providencecentral.com

These sources have been inserted, removed, inserted and removed for years. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Given MrTownCar (t c)'s disclosure of his COI and MrTowncar's assertion of Macauthor (t c) COI, their continuous whitewashing of Providence (religious movement), unwillingness to discuss issues except on their terms, and misleading edit summaries, a topic ban would seem in order. Macauthor: are you a member of Providence and/or related groups? Macauthor: do you have a conflict of interest here per WP:COI? Jim1138 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

spare us the ad hominem attacks and kindly give a diff on my 'misleading' edit summaries. it might also help if you answer my question which you dodged on your talk page. MrTownCar (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not an ad hominem attack. Per wp:COI Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. If you have a COI, you should not be editing the Providence article or anything related to it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have a WP:COI and will no longer edit the article. But much of the content being kept from the article is extremely informative about the subject, most but not all is properly sourced by third party news sources (the rest are direct quotes from Jung himself and thus allowed depending on your interpretation of WP:BLP policy), and most of it is new material about more recent events relating to Providence that have never been up for discussion before. The more experienced editors have continually removed any content that does not deal with Jung strictly as a criminal or treat the religious movement as a cult. I have not and am not proposing the removal of negative content (unlike MrTownCar), but only ask that properly sourced material that informs readers about the other aspects of the religious movement and its founder be treated fairly and given proper place in this controversial subject. Macauthor (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY I SEEK TO REMOVE FALSE NEGATIVE INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE NOT SIMPLY NEGATIVE INFORMATION.MrTownCar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In a long talk page message 6 November 2013, here, MrTownCar (t c) writes about Jung Myung Seok

I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses.

While beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest, such opinions cast light over the NPOV challenges; a few examples:

• Unexplained removal of contents here
• Removal of material negative to Jung/adding of apologetic material here and here
• Removal of all material on Jung's rape convictions here
• Reverting of 55 intermediate revisions to a prefered version here (edit summary removed)
• Four days later the exact same thing here
• Reverts an edit by Shii, adding primary sources from Providence here, saying Shii has a "slanderous agenda" here, and repeats the same revert minutes later here. Then repeats the same revert here, calling Shii's edit "Continued vandalism" here, and repeats his revert for a fouth time here after being reverted by Ukexpat for whitewashing. This prompts Drmies to restore more acceptable version from one which promotes the subject with the use of unreliable sources and blames his victims--lest we forget, that's a BLP violation.
• Removal of material sourced form Korean National Police Agency et. al here
• Removal of socalled "planted articles" (Radio Austalia, News.com.au, and again Korean National Police Agency) here, quickly reverted by Richwales

The last entry above was in June 2013 but the pattern continues up to now, cf. contributions. Further a few examples of incivility, sock accusations here and here, and a bit of the usual WP:OWN here. Sam Sailor 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

sam you are aware it is march 2014. You concede that everything above occurred before 2013 june almost 1 year ago. all of my edits recently get a clear edit summary to explain the basis unlike your repeated reversions with no explanations.MrTownCar (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to backup what Sam Sailor has said. This article and the JMS article that was finally merged into Providence have seen a great deal of white washing from Providence supporters. Certain edits are persistently made with various edit summaries, but always the same text despite objections. Anything negative, especially about JMS, is removed if at all possible. The allegations that have been made that negative articles are "planted" is disturbing as it shows a rather extreme mindset. Complicating this are language issues as many of the sources are in Korean or Chinese. Uninvolved editors with good Korean language skills and familiarity with some of the sources being used have helped in the past and would continue to help out here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: two brief points. Firstly the article contains 65, repeat 65, negatively written sources about JMS not one single neutral let alone positive source. Not sure I understand the concept of whitewashing with that as the foundation of the article. Secondly, I wrote to News Unlimited and they confirmed via email that they never wrote an article about JMS plain and simple. I dont appreciate your casting aspersions when you are uninformed of the content of my communication with them. I still have the email response from them and will be happy to forward it to you or anyone else who cares to see it.MrTownCar (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to watch. There are at least two followers of Providence: MrTownCar (t c) and Macauthor (t c) who seem to be removing cited, negative matreial and adding propaganda 1 2 3. Most sources are in Korean, Japanese, or Chinese. While there are machine translators, the translations from these languages to English is cumbersome at best. As @Ravanes stated, having native speakers of these languages review sources and locate additional sources would be very helpful. @Macauthor has stated he is affiliated with Providence and will no longer edit the article. @MrTownCar has also stated his affiliation but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. A topic ban for this area on Providence affiliates should be administered to reduce the constant whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made no edits since you sent the edit request notice to my talk page. Tell the story truthfully with NO PROPAGANDA or spin. My last edit was 4 hrs before you sent the notice. Please rertract your false and misleading statement Jim1138.MrTownCar (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Rationale: Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) both have a substantial history of disruptive editing in articles related to Jung Myung Seok. With frequent violations of BLP, NPOV, and RS in attempts to white-wash articles, and with declared COIs, nothing indicates that they are here to build an encyclopedia.

Given this, I propose that Macauthor and MrTownCar be topic banned from editing all topics relating to Providence (religious movement) and Jung Myung Seok (both broadly construed) indefinitely. Jim1138 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that we give a chance to the suggestion made by Jim 1138 previously that I use edit requests. Jim posted this to my talk page Monday 4 hrs AFTER my last edit. I am deeply disturbed that JIM posted a false accusation in the above section that I refuse to use edit requests...." but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. ".... simply not true since I have made no edits since this was posted to my talkpage. Jim attempt to topic ban the most knowledge person on Misplaced Pages on JMS and Providence is not in spirit of Misplaced Pages especially when coming from a senior rollbacker who cant report objectively regarding my actions in the above ANI started by mcauthor.MrTownCar (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a WP:SPADE is a spade. We have two problematic WP:SPA who clearly have an agenda. They edit no other articles. They are strong believers in Providence. I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia.

There has no re-insertion of official providence source (eg. providencecentral.com) since February, and that's a start at least. But who's to say that they won't re-insert these sources when people stop paying attention to it?

As said above, it is a difficult article to watch and to try to sort through the claims. We need a lot more people fluent in Korean and Chinese languages. I just can't sort through any of these claims. I'm going to ask WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Korea for help. Most of the content of the article and sources are totally beyond me. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. The two users are WP:NOTHERE. Sam Sailor 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• I will support a topic ban as proposed, but I'd prefer a site-wide ban + indefinite block. They edit nothing else, so what's the point of theoretically leaving the rest of the encyclopedia open to them, really? The disadvantage of topic bans is that they tend to invite skirting, testing the waters, and encroaching, making for more waste of constructive editors' time. I'm not suggesting these two would necessarily do that, but I just don't see the advantage of stopping at a topic ban where zealot SPAs are concerned. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
• Support topic ban as proposed. While the two users are clearly unable to edit with WP:NPOV in this topic area, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're actually WP:NOTHERE. That said, I'd like to construe the topics under the ban as broadly as we can. - Jorgath (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. An indefinite ban in general is too harsh. But this must be combined with a real attempt to improve the article. Which means recruiting foreign language speakers, and a review of sources. Preventing them from whitewashing the article is only a first step. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and NPOV at Logan River Academy

Logan River Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1LastManStanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This is an interesting little squabble that has been going on for months. The page started as largely a smear campaign at the beginning of November created by SPA Mgottesfeld. 67.177.32.215 started whitewashing the page the other way. At this point. 209.6.193.140 reverted him. Then the page creator began edit warring over the article, until he stopped after a 3RR report. Everything stayed this way until early February when another SPA 173.14.238.190, now inactive, white washed it again. After he goes inactive, 67 comes back, lo and behold, and carries on his work. 209 reverted once during this time. From Feb. 25 until the 7th it stopped, until 67 again just reverts some constructive edits, and continues to edit-war until the 11th. Then a fresh SPA, 1LastManStanding, comes into the picture and begins to whitewash. 209 asked WPPilot to check out the article and he made one edit. Now 67 and 1LastManStanding are both tag team edit warring over the article, with 209 reverting them. 209, incidentally, is now at 5RR.

All of this article is NPOV one way or another, and it may7 just need to be nuked and started over. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While on the point of nuking and starting over, I suggest full protection as well as another report directly to WP:ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For whom? KonveyorBelt 20:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was asked by a IP user to review the page and boy does it have issues. To me this page has been a tool to attack the subject and not much more. I am trying to avoid conflict, when I added something that I felt improved the Wiki it was promptly reverted. I had also requested a page lock but that was denied? WPPilot talk 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• As the major warfare has been waged by I.P. numbers I really think that a semi protect is in order. Granted that named users have been a part of the battle, the IP semi block would at least put the edit warring to rest as far as the IP numbers listed above are concerned. WPPilot talk 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Post to prevent archiving—this still hasn't been fixed and the edit war is still ongoing. KonveyorBelt 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I can step in since this hasn't had much attention. So there are a couple of different issues here.

First off all, there are behavioral issues that need to be resolved. I guess the question is, what administrator intervention is needed? Activity has been relatively low on the page (especially in the last few days) so any kind of protection seems unnecessary (which is probably why the WP:RFPP was declined). Protection is normally given to pages who have multiple editors disrupting it very actively, which is not what is happening here. So that leaves individual attention; looking at the accounts involved and determining what action is needed for each one. Editing in violation of WP:NPOV after repeated warnings can lead to blocks, and it doesn't matter if the POV being inserted is positive (spamming/whitewashing) or negative (turning it into an attack page), either is an example of disruption. I can give it a review to see what I can determine, though if anyone has examples of diffs with particularly problematic edits, and some explanation as to what specific concerns the diffs raise (aside from a generic "whitewash" or "attack" accusation) that would be helpful, and may help generate interest from someone other than just myself. The other possibility is that we have socking, which probably will have to be determined behaviorally unless we have multiple named accounts who have edited within the last few months to tie together for CheckUser. I can look for behavioral patterns to indicate sock puppet evidence, though as before diffs could speed this up.

Secondly, it sounds like the article itself has been a casualty of this whole process. Sometimes it's good when you have biased editors with strong opposing points of view working on an article. Editor A wants to paint the subject in as positive a manner as possible, while Editor B wants the article to reflect how awful the subject is. They argue, they debate, and they dispute one point after another, challenging each other to back up their opinions with reliable sources. If the editors are able to keep things civil, and if they follow policies and guidelines, the end result can end up being a compromise with an article that is balanced (a mix of both A and B's views) and well-sourced. But when you just have edit warriors who try to bomb the article with sweeping changes and don't discuss anything, you instead have a mess of unsubstantiated claims both positive and negative. In a case like that, neutral editors need to sort through the mess and fix things up. It's probable that the article isn't going to be salvaged until the disruption is ended (either with blocks, a change in behavior, or the editors giving up and going away).

Finally, is the subject notable? There are a lot of references in the article, to some pretty reliable sources, but I haven't had a chance to check how relevant those sources are, and how much coverage the facility has actually received. The answer to disruption at an article shouldn't be to delete it, but if the article doesn't actually merit inclusion, it's a pretty easy fix. -- Atama頭 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To add a quick update, Mgottesfeld has outed himself as "Marty Gottesfeld, Community Organizer" and cites "#ShutLoganRiver" and "www.shutdownloganriver.com" in this edit at Talk:Kids for cash scandal. So this editor clearly has a conflict of interest, and probably should not be editing the Logan River Academy article directly. -- Atama頭 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The editor's different versions of the same article are too biased to blend well. I would suggest blocks, but they'd just make more socks and come back again. KonveyorBelt 16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Now we have the IP 67 tag team editing with the sock to revert my edits. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• When I received the rather "random IP request" and reviewed the page, it was clear that this was going to be a hot potato...I too would suggest blocks on the known COI user and again suggest that a semi protect is put in place to force the IP battle to stop. As mentioned on the talk page the place seems to have a little notability but any non biased user that goes wading through the stuff to edit it into a article that is not effected by the above mentioned battle is useless. That will never happen unless action is taken. WPPilot - talk 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Paul Gaskell

Paul Gaskell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been involved in very suspicious behaviour and a sort of "anti-ownership" on the article St Helens Central (GCR) railway station ‎; something happened which seems to have agitated him so much that he's trying to revoke the licensing of his own content; he posted a blatantly uncivil, all-caps remark on my talk page when I restored the content that he had removed:

HOW DARE YOU HAVE THE EFFRONTERY TO RE-INSTATE MATERIAL WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN DUE TO CONSTANT INTERFERENCE BY WIKI EDITORS ! THESE COLOUR PHOTOS WHICH ARE MY OWN AND THEREFORE MY COPYRIGHT, TOGETHER WITH ACCOMPANYING PHOTO AND BODY TEXT WERE REMOVED BY ME SEVERAL WEEKS AGO BECAUSE OF THIS.

I AM SICK TO THE BACK TEETH OF INTERFERENCE BY WIKI 'EDITORS' WHO SEEM TO CARE MORE ABOUT THEIR OWN AGGRANDISMENT WITHIN THE ORGANISATION THAN THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF SUBJECTS AND GENUINE LOCAL PROVIDERS OF SUCH - THEREFORE QUASI-VANDALISING THE ORGANISATION THEY PURPORT TO SERVE.

AS A RESULT OF THIS, I WILL BE PROVIDING MY WITHDRAWN INFORMATION TO AN ALTERNATIVE UK WEBSITE WHOSE PRIMARY INTEREST IS IN THE HISTORICAL CONTENT OF THIS MATERIAL AND NOT ANY CONSTRUCTIONAL MINUTIAE. RESTORE THE PAGE IMMEDIATELY TO WHAT IT WAS WITHOUT ANY OF MY SUBMISSIONS. WIKI HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME FOR THIS NEGATIVE RESULT, WHICH IN A BROADER PERSPECTIVE DOES NOTHING TO ENCOURAGE FUTURE GENUINE WIKI CONTRIBUTORS - GET THE BALANCE RIGHT !

I think someone needs to take a look at this. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• The problem I foresee is the fact that in this case the uploader was not contacted with regards to the uploader's wish of whether he desired to keep the images local or move it to commons. (He preferred the images to be local, but when Sfan00 IMG tagged the 4 images afterwards for {{keep local}}, he was never told about it; I assume this is why the editor is upset since someone keeps changing the page without consulting him.) - Penwhale | 05:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • He also needs to be reminded that clicking 'submit' irrevocably licenses the submissions; there are no "take-backsies". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The images were originally tagged for Commons, those tags were removed. The tag was removed. So based on past experience with other editors, who didn't want material on Commons, the image were tagged {{keep local}}, in line with the view that was apparently expressed by the uploader. The keep local tag was subsquently removed. The images concerned are now at FFD as they appeared to be unused. following changes to the article.

To make an allegation of "vandalism" against contributors acting in good faith, is bit harsh. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also note that the uploader (on their talk page) got annoyed when File:Local passenger train at old St. Helens Central GCR) station.jpg was queried as to it's exact status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Paul Gaskell notified. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, the uploader claims that on or around the 27th they got 6 e-mails from me (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Paul_Gaskell#St._Helens_Central_.28GCR.29_Railway_Station). I've never sent them any e-mails. All I did was query stauts, or tag for Commons transfer WITHIN the Mediawiki interface. I'd also like to request a checkuser so that it's clear once and for all that Stefan2/4 is not me. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some people receive an email notification whenever a page or file on their watchlist is changed. They're likely mistaking these notifications as being directly from you rather than sent out automatically in response to changes to the watch-list. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor is apparently not going to be continuing to edit on Misplaced Pages so warnings and such would have no effect on him, if they were warranted. Is there a problem with honoring his request and simply not using his images? It sounds like they are up for deletion any way. Liz 16:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried interacting with this user, with some success at first, and even tried to explain the position regarding image licensing; but my last two posts seem to have been ignored. Unfortunately this user - like so many others - seems to be under the impression that having a copy of a photograph in their possession means that they own the image and therefore the copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Paul: He's just totally fed up with all the templating he's been receiving. I do sympathise. He's a good-faith editor and a local historian doing just the sort of thing we should be actively supporting at Misplaced Pages. As far as I can see he's going to withdraw from editing and that strikes me as a real shame. It seems to me there's a "culture" problem at Non-free content review (NFCR). I satirise it here regarding one of Paul's files. There are areas of the various Wikimedia projects, notably modern history and the contemporary arts, which are perforce very dependent on non-free content to illustrate their content. The Wikimedia licensing policy expressly recognises that. But a situation seems to have developed where a particular clique at NFCR have set themselves up as a kind of court scrutinising all this content. . The reality is that many of their calls are just plain wrong (for me its nadir was reached a few weeks ago with a post regarding the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian's, in reality one of the most accomplished graphic artists of all time, later abstract works which were suggested too "simple" to attract copyright - niet te geloven ...) while their public relations are an absolute disaster. I don't think this the way to fix Paul's grievances and I am very sorry indeed to see him in this situation. It's quite likely that I myself will eventually stop editing as well. No longer one of the 100 things I wanted to do before I die ... Who needs this? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 notified, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Coat of Many Colours. What do our disagreements about WP:NFCC have to do with this guy? It seems that my only interaction with this guy has been the addition of a "no permission" tag to one of his files. I also mentioned one of his other files on another user's talk page, but Paul probably hasn't seen that message. Apart from those two files, I do not think that I have interacted with the user in any way or made any edits related to his files. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Stefan. First of all (but I do I know that you have high proficiency in English) you ought to know that your use of "this guy" in British English (and Paul is British) suggests contempt. Secondly our disagreement is not just about NFCC, as you know. Thirdly I assumed there was no need to notify you of my comments because I had wikilinked your username.

You did template Paul once, but your complaint is legitimate because indeed I confused you with Sfan00 IMG, with whom I have also had an issue in the past as recorded on my Talk page: just a momentary confusion, so sorry. So I've edited my remarks and apologise. If you want to me to strike instead I'll do that. I would like my remarks about NFCR to stand though. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Paul seems to be upset because he has received several e-mails and because file information pages have been modified. He removed the templates added by User:Sfan00 IMG, which to me suggests that he did not understand what the templates meant and that he hoped to avoid any potential "problems" by removing them. New users do not necessarily know what Commons is, so adding templates that a file should be, shouldn't be or has been moved to Commons could be confusing.

Paul was also upset because a file was tagged as missing permission. Looking at his recent edits, I see that he has mentioned this on User:Coat of Many Colours' talk page: 'I guess you can understand my frustration then when I was first of all targetted for an old 1950's picture of a loco at the platform, which I "hadn't got permission" for, despite that fact that nobody local knew the originator, it, plus other of the old photos on page were already in use on local websites, pictures in local pubs and even in a large local supermarket !' The problem here is that the photograph is copyrighted, so we need permission from the photographer, or from the photographer's heir if the photographer is dead. The orphan works problem is because of problems with copyright laws, and it is not my fault that some copyright holders can't easily be located. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say you (and Sfan) did a poor PR job here, Stefan. You should be doing better than this as ambassadors for Misplaced Pages. This is what I mean about the "culture" problem at NFCR.: the idea that all these "guys" out there are trying to pull a fast one. But mostly they are good faith editors and they should be nurtured and cherished more carefully. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've heard enough in this thread. Perhaps it's time that some of us took a break from doing image work?.

(I note that some concerns were also raised at Commons about over-vigorus copyright policy enforcement). I like to think I do things in good faith, but it seems there is a perception about competence.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Naveen Reddy reported by User:Catflap08 (Result: Both blocked)

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

The Naveen Reddy has been warned about his style on the Soka Gakkai talk page. Disruptive editing behaviour on that page and others though continued today. Can a Block be considered? Please notice that the issue was raised just yesterday.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08, do you have specific examples (diffs) to share that illustrate behavior you think is disruptive? Liz 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you block Catflap08? Catflap08 is one of the few non-advocate editors on the pages in question, and the last thread on the talk page readily shows the problems with Naveen's conduct. I haven't looked through the recent talk page in detail for conduct problems from Catflap08, but I also see absolutely none described here. Is that the proper way to block people from editing?

I should note that there was a thread posted before this one which is still live and can be viewed above, where Mr. Stradivarius was the only uninvolved person to comment.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 violated WP:3RR, which can and often does lead to a block to stop the edit war. Not only did they violate 3RR, but unlike their opponent they didn't even bother with edit summaries throughout that process. All that Catflap08 really needed to do was ask for an unblock and promise to stop reverting at the page, and any reasonable admin would probably have unblocked them (I probably would have). Instead, they insisted that the block was improper and made no suggestion that they would stop reverting, and by insisting that the reverts were proper, they at least implied that they would continue the edit war if unblocked. To be honest, edit-warring is unacceptable from anyone, and Catflap08 doesn't have some kind of special immunity because they are editing an unpopular article. -- Atama頭 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama summarises my approach accurately. This looked like blind reversion, and the only time that's permitted is extreme circumstances such as blatant vandalism (e.g. replacing the page with obscenities) or copyright infringements. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. Was he at least warned about the edit warring, though? I can't see whether he has a history of edit warring related blocks.

At any rate, he has no "Retired", and those articles are seriously problematic--almost as much as Judiasm/Zionism articles--with advocates posting advocacy material continually. I don't have sufficient time to monitor them myself, though I have made a couple edits, etc. The point is that it is important to evaluate and engage such editors, because Misplaced Pages needs them.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If Catflap08 isn't willing to abide by one of Misplaced Pages's most core tenets, which is that we don't get involved in endless edit wars and we instead discuss matter with other editors (even editors who aren't particularly civil) then I don't know if this project is a good fit regardless. Don't think that this is in any way an endorsement of Naveen Reddy's actions or comments; they also participated in the edit war (and shared the block) and some of this editor's actions are a definite problem. Civility is an area where action is rarely taken, but personal attacks are a different matter and Naveen Reddy most definitely crossed the line on the article's talk page. Not to mention that the editor is openly acting as an advocate of the movement and openly showing a conflict of interest. One thing that you should realize, Ubikwit (and that I wish that Catflap08 could understand) is that there are processes to fix the problem that the page currently has. When an article is threatened by an organized effort to use it for some outside purpose, arbitration has been implemented to stop that behavior. Of course, there are a number of steps that lead to that point, but you can find numerous examples of articles in similar situations that have been dealt with strongly, with special sanctions implemented to enforce compliancy with our policies and guidelines. Edit-warring is not a positive step toward achieving that, however. -- Atama頭 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done then. Not my problem any more. I reported the problem since REFERENCED material got deleted by an editor clearly with a COI problem. You're blocking procedure works faster than calls to warn editors who missuse articles and corrupt them. Seems that the quality of articles ain't top of the agenda (so much to “core tenet “ ).--Catflap08 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

interaction ban request

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

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

I think it is time a there was officially a wall between me and this user. We don't agree on some issues, and whenever I state my disagreement he becomes extremely agitated and attacks my motivations. This all began because I dared to suggest that the Article Incubator was not working and we should close it. At the same time that I was proposing this he was trying to expand it by adding a portal and an entirely new process called the "incubator greenhouse". Both of those areas were deleted and the incubator was in fact finally closed in favor of the new draft namespace. So, I thought we probably wouldn't run into one another again and that we would have no more unpleasant encounters until I was pinged at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tosca (software). What I found there was an accusation that I and another admin had conspired to delete a perfectly good article behind everyone's back, when in fact six months ago I had merely MFD'd a page that had been in the incubator for two years. When I attempted to correct the record on this matter he reverted me, claiming WP:NPA as justification I find that ironic as I was the one whose motivations were attacked.

And this isn't the first time:

• AN thread in which he repeatedly says I am delusional and should be banned from the incubator
• Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/Archive 4#Proposal to mark as historical, a discussion in which he repeatedly implies some sort of sinister motivations on my part
• There's more, but it is fairly repetitive. Every time I comment on something he assumes the absolute worst and implies I have some hidden agenda when in fact my agenda was not hidden at all and I was entirely upfront about my positions and why I took them.

I wish he could just let it go and stop smearing my name at every possible opportunity, but that seems to be too much to ask, so I ask for an interaction ban. It need only be one way as I have not and do not plan to go looking for opportunities to mention his name, but if folks think a two-way is better that's fine with me. Beeblebrox

• Normally, these belong at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI but I won't labor it. As for supporting it or not, I would lean not simply because I've never seen an Arb request an interaction ban and it strikes me as rather odd. I would have to let that roll around my brain for a while... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking as an arb, I am asking as a member of this community who would prefer that another member of it stop their whisper campaign against me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that and respect the difference, but it still is unusual and people still see it as "an arb" (just a small part of the price you are paying for the glory, I'm sure). Not sure if it is a precedent, or if there are unintended consequences. One expectation is that Arbs are expected to be able to handle dispute resolution, and (as pointed out below) I would want to see what has been tried before this radical step. It is no secret that I'm not a fan of interaction bans and only support them if there really is no other way to deal with an issue. Enforcement is always a pain, for starters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: IBs usually work ok if the dispute is two sided and two people just grate each other and both are on equal footing. If it is a one sided problem, IB is the wrong answer, as it must be enforced equally on both sides, and it makes it easy for the problem side to game the system, or just eat up time at ANI. In other words, they grief you by causing more process over the IB. RFC/U might be a better answer, although I'm not a fan of that process either, as it has no teeth. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Token Objection: What DR steps have you tried prior to requesting this interaction ban? Somewhat in jest, but if one of the members of the highest form of DR isn't following the prescribed checklist, what does that say about Conduct DR? Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Where would you suggest? There isn't an article that is the locus of the dispute, the entire project that was at the center of it has been gone for a while now. There is no dispute so far as I am concerned. It is a dead issue and I would like it to be buried. I am not interested in having a discussion with him, I just want him to leave me alone and to stop making accusations about my motivations. If he can promise to do that we can be done right here and now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Unscintillating is still a redlink (as Dennis Brown indicated). That indicates that you haven't tried the lower avenues of DR. Imagine if this were brought to ArbCom in it's current state. The request would have been bounced because as a Conduct Dispute, the lower forms (such as RFC/U or talk page requests) don't appear to have been attempted by you, whereas requests on your talk page were met with significantly less than good faith. With great power comes great responsibility, and being an Arbitrator is just about the highest responsibility that you can have an enWP. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Agreed, that was not a personal attack and Unscintillating had no business redacting it. For someone who spends so much time making wildly speculative criticisms of others he is very touchy when it comes to scrutiny of his own behaviour, but Unscintillating's attitude towards the project and fellow editors has always been very poor. This protracted whinge campaign against Beeblebrox is nothing new; he did the same thing with me over several years. I am sure his goal at Misplaced Pages is to be as annoying as possible. His mode of operation is to wikilawyer endlessly, playing pointless semantic games and acting as self-appointed tone police, often with fancy custom templates and high-sounding officialese. The intent is to get an exasperated response from people, which he then holds against them. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If this is the case and it is an ongoing issue with other editors, then an RFC/U is more appropriate than an interaction ban. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• non admin comment I think Beeblebrox's actions in the past regarding the incubator are quite correct, and Unscintilating is perhaps too emotionally attached to that part of the project to think clearly. But if the recent AFD comment is the extent of recent interaction, then I think an iBan is un-needed at this point - a single comment in 6 months does not require intervention. If hes hounding you more than that, then show the diffs, and there is something to discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Definitely oppose after considering. What if he posts a legit notice on your page, you respond snippy, he does the same, three comments later he calls you a fucktard and gets blocked. Now it might look like favoritism because you are an Arb. We get claims like that as admin, you know it will happen more so to an Arb. Or the other way around, and the admin hesitates to block because you are an Arb. (Many admin would be reluctant to block an Arb, you know this) The problem is that this would be completely uneforceable without causing major drama and questions over fairness. No matter what any admin does to enforce, some in the community may see it as favoritism, so many admin won't want to enforce it at all because they don't want the hassle. You need to consider an RFC/U or other process if this is an ongoing issue. I hate it for you, but that is part of the burden of the bits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved party, I'd agree with others that an IB seems premature. However, a warning for the inappropriate removal of Beeblebrox's comment, as well as an admonishment against dredging up past disputes, would be about right. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• The edit which is disputed here is when I said that "two admins intent on moving articles from the incubator to deletespace did a number on a properly improved Misplaced Pages article with references showing national and international attention."  I have objectified the slang here so that the sentence now reads, "two admins with a history of deleting articles in the incubator deleted a properly improved Misplaced Pages article with references showing national and international attention."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• It has been exactly seven days since Beeblebrox was previously at ANI because of WP:NPA.  As I said then, there are exactly two editors at Misplaced Pages who have banished me from their talk pages, those being Reyk and Beeblebrox.  Reyk has also tried to obtain an interaction ban against me.  Here is the one time I posted to Beeblebrox's talk page.  I was first told that my post was "booooring....".  After initially talking about "...a magic sky castle staffed by monkey butlers and magic unicorns", the reply was amended a couple of hours later to tell me not to post there again.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• At the ANI seven days ago, I asked a question and didn't get an answer.  What is the procedure to remove an editor from the oversight committee?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • First, there is no set process for removing an arb.
  • Second, when one finds themself in a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging. — The Hand That Feeds You: 08:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Unscintilating, while I agree that there might have been some initial justification to your complaint, Misplaced Pages has no right for you to demand satisfactory enforcement or apology. To the contrary, you appear to be hounding and disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. And trying to bait him into another confrontation. Please drop it. There are only so many buttons you can push in so public a manner before either an uninvolved admin reaches for the "block" button or an interaction ban passes community consensus. Please stop now while it's only a temporary ding on everyone's reputations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps now that he has joined the discussion it is more clear what it has been like to be on the receiving end of this.The talk page edit he points out was from a year ago. In it, he complains about AFDs we both participated in one and two years before that. This guy holds onto to every little comment he doesn't like and saves it in his "grudge file" so he can trot it back out a year or two later. As for the incident from just last week, another user, who also had trouble dropping the stick, brought me here because of a comment I made during a content dispute. Next thing I know Unscintilatiing is asking how to give me the boot from oversight, despite the fact that the content dispute had absolutely nothing to do with the use of advanced permissions.

@Unscintillating:, I asked on your talk page, and I'll ask again here: is there any chance you could simply agree to drop this? By which I mean simply stop making accuations related to me, stop saying I am "delusional" just pretend you never heard of me? I would be more than happy to return the favor if you are willing. Nothing binding, just an agreement between two people who can't seem to get along to just avoid mentioning one another? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, thank you for the offer that I continue to not talk to you, as I have been doing since last Fall, when you led a successful effort to destroy the work I had been doing to improve the incubator.  You give me the novel choice either of being uncivil, by not responding to your proposal; or refusing your proposal.  At Misplaced Pages, discussion is required, so it is an easy choice.  Are you ready to continue the discussion that I started on your talk page?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the choice I presented was to agree to drop it or to not agree to drop it. I don't see what purpose there would be in having a discussion about old, dead issues that keep wanting to bring back up, that is rather my whole point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• We have found out in this discussion that some people don't know the difference between arbcom and the oversight committee.  I have asked twice recently, and still have no answer as to the process to remove an editor from the oversight committee.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • While Beeblebrox earned the OS bit before he became Arb, the bit is required to be an Arb, which is why it is granted upon election. As such, to remove the OS bit is more or less requires he would removed from Arb. In order to get the OS bit removed (Arb or not) requires you file at Arb itself, as they are over the OS and CU bits directly. Email them if you must. We have no authority at WP:AN and WP:ANI to address or discuss that concern. I don't recommend pursuing this at Arb unless there is a lot of evidence of abuse that I haven't seen. Without clear and ample evidence, the request will just look vindictive and subject to a boomerang. I think you both just need to avoid each other, which doesn't require an official declaration from anyone. It is pretty clear that an IB isn't going to happen, but you are both adults and are capable of staying away from each other with the force of a formal ban. Since he has made it very clear he wants an air gap between the two of you, you need to simply avoid him, else you run the risk of your actions (rightly or wrongly) being interpreted as hounding. Just "pretend" there is an IB and avoid each other completely. Each of us have someone(s) we simply can not get along with, but we all are expected to still act like professionals when dealing with each other. You both are fully capable of this, which is why no administrative action is needed here, just a little discipline on both of your parts. This will avoid either of you getting blocked in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Err... You (Unscintillating) keep referring to "the oversight committee". There is none.

Oversight is a special administrative permission to make an edit dissapear from the public record, should it include threats or libel...

What have you been talking about, precisely?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also at a loss as I don't recall using suppression, or any other advanced permissions, in any of the areas that have been the subject of our previous disputes. This is why this feels more to me like a campaign of harassment than just a normal minor disagreement between editors. However, if you have a legitimate complaint about my use of oversight you should contact WP:AUSC, it is their job to review such complaints. Or, again, you could just drop your campaign against me and move on. (and as others have pointed out there is no such thing as the "oversight committee". Oversighters are a subgroup of the functionaries and do not operate as a committee) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion was closed while I was preparing a response, and the closing complicates any response I may make.  Sorry, but I have a RL.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MEAT at Vassula Ryden

There is some serious meat puppetry going on at Vassula Ryden. Multiple SPA accounts that toe the same line have reactivated after a nearly 2 year hiatus Webwidget (talk · contribs),Arkatakor (talk · contribs),Sasanack (talk · contribs) and a newly activated one Siamsiocht (talk · contribs) (made only 2 edits in 2011 to support an edit war by Arkatakor) and are trying to use local consensus to insert material to imply the Catholic church accepts Vassula Ryden, based on primary sources, despite the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) having active notifications against her. (see the talk page for recent activity, and Talk:Vassula_Ryden#Grechs_comments.3F for vote stacking the consensus process) I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with this meat puppetry ... Second Quantization (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arkatakor#Comments_by_other_users, Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok first a few corrections to your opening statement:

1. RE: to insert material to imply the Catholic church accepts Vassula Ryden. This is not the case, the editors are simply discussing including the dialogue with the CDF as part of the chronology of events. Read the discussions in the talk page.
2. RE: based on primary sources. The CDF dialogue is not only backed by the insidethevatican source written by a Cardinal who corresponded with Ryden on behalf of the Vatican, its further supported by an RSN approved Oxford University Press source written by a subject matter Niels Hvidt, who provides context for the CDF dialogue. This source was also mentioned in the discussions. I do not see how you can call both of these primary sources. Arkatakor (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the content (once again) (RSN: "There is no reason to consider use of this source", RSN approved does not mean mean anything since its a noticeboard, Grech is a primary source for his own opinions about an incident he was involved in), I'm here to discuss the concerns with the MEAT puppetry, Second Quantization (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. RE: "RSN: There is no reason to consider use of this source". If you are going to quote the RSN, quote the full sentence: "RSN: Swiss journalists are not experts in the structure of internal Catholic disciplinary limitations against external texts, Hvidt already supplies a scholarly account. There is no reason to consider use of this source.". Fifelfoo was referring to the Swiss publication, not Hvidt's source. What is alarming is that you are full aware of this as you participated in that discussion (under the name of IRWolfie). This makes it your 3rd attempt to mislead readers in this discussion alone.
2. RE: RSN approved does not mean mean anything since its a noticeboard. I invite readers of this conversation to read the full RSN being discussed here, particularly Fifelfoo's reaction towards IRWolfie's (now Second Quantization)'s treatment of Hvidt's work. It should not be a surprise therefore, that he continues to undermine the RSN findings in this discussion.
3. RE: I'm here to discuss the concerns with the MEAT puppetry. Is opening the discussion with misleading statements part of your strategy? Arkatakor (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am copying the same response to the two places this matter seems to have been placed. Please understand that I do not understand the complex 'machinery' of Misplaced Pages! This matter is being raised by 'Second Quantization' who, until a few weeks ago operated under the name 'IRWolfie'. Why he has chosen to change his name seems very strange to me to say the least! The recent attempted edits to the Vassula page are as a result of the appearance, in January, of an important review of a recent book by Vassula in a long established magazine, Inside the Vatican. The review was written by a Cardinal who played an important role in the Vatican's only dialogue with Vassula. A group of editors have consistently blocked reference to this dialogue on the WP page. The result of the relentless editing of the Vassula page by the same group of editors has resulted in a ridiculous collection of negative material with almost no positive material. Sasanack (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• The background to this ANI discussion is that Vassula Ryden is a controversial mystic, loved by thousands of followers but condemned by the Vatican and the Eastern Orthodox church. On Misplaced Pages, a number of single- and nearly single-purpose accounts have added promotional or positive text to the biography over the past 7 years, starting with Arkatakor but including Yekadel, Perrum, Siamsiocht, Rn2hearts and Webwidget. Other SPAs have added negative information, for instance MLPIO. In October 2010, Cameron Scott worked to reduce the promotional fluff, then in January 2012 Mannanan51 worked to clean up the article. This started a flurry of activity lasting through March 2012, then there was another round of back-and-forth editing from May to July 2012. At that point, several veteran Misplaced Pages editors (Lucky Louie, IRWolfie, Dominus Vobisdu and myself) had taken the article in hand, to prevent an imbalance of too much positive information from appearing, and to make certain that the well-referenced negative information was kept. Especially important was that the Vatican's negative Notification against Ryden was to remain a prominent point in the biography, despite the efforts of Ryden and her fans to put a positive spin on the Vatican communications.
  The new development in the biography was in January 2014 when Ryden announced a new book. Webwidget added some positive text, then Oct13 added some negative text, poorly sourced. Finally, Sasanack added some positive text in the old vein of putting a positive spin on the Vatican communication. So now we're back at ANI discussing the same old themes. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also related, Sasanack self-outed as the registrant for Vassula Ryden's website so there has been an ongoing concern about recruitment and off wiki coordination by Ryden followers and members of her organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinda baffled here seeing my name in a post outside the Talk page where I posted yesterday – as a relative newbie to Misplaced Pages (tried making a few edits a couple of years ago, but found the formatting/editing text a bit beyond me – more complex than I’d figured!) – thought I’d maybe give it a try again when I saw that ‘Inside the Vatican’ article. Saw the article briefly referenced in the Rydén article hence my visit to the Talk page where I posted for the 1st time ever adding my 2 cents… (how to actually post in the Talk page took me a while to figure out!) Appreciate I’m new to this but thought that Misplaced Pages was open to anyone to volunteer… will hang in here & hopefully learn more! ☺ Siamsiocht (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsiocht (talk • contribs)

Binkstrnet, many of your points regarding the article, such the notification (which you have incorrectly interpreted as a condemnation) as well as your opinion that the article is balanced and using reliable sources, is subject to debate. I will refrain from commenting further on these points as I understand that this is not the main theme of this topic.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight that, even though the Ryden article has gone many months (sometimes even years) without activity, as soon as there is any level of debate in the talk page of the article, Binksternet, IRWolfie (now Second Quantization) and LuckyLouie all seem to show up and join these discussions at the same time. I do not know if this is indicative of some sort of coordinated effort, but it could be worth making an investigation in the reverse order. In any case, since May 2012, these 3 users alone have largely contributed to turning a relatively informative version of the article, into a virtually one sided article. They continue to work in unison to keep the article as such which is verifiable upon inspecting the articles edit history. Arkatakor (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Ryden article was the main article I got involved in a few years ago and I had that many rules thrown in my face that I learnt a lot and after a while I gave up, I remember an article on badgers that I helped someone with around the same time who had asked for help on a notice board as they declared a COI and the experience was like night and day to working in the Ryden BLP, there was a huge heated debate on the Ryden BLP at that time, RFC/RSN/DRN and its interesting to see above about consensus over weight of numbers as there was an OUP source a couple of years back that seemed that it should have been included but simply was not allowed in Rydens BLP. What appears to me to be a united front of Binksternet, Second Quantization and LuckyLouie in not allowing for balance or any other point of view to be represented in Rydens BLP and it is like a battle to get anything that has a remotely positive pov added. "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one" The facts are the facts and they are reported in a reputable source but that's what my experience has been like with the Ryden BLP. I also saw the Cardinal Grech article and given that the current BLP is so horrendously biased and bears witness to approx 20,000+ page views per annum came back for another go. When I saw the same old fight starting again I tried to start an RFC on the Grech Article and I dont know if one of the above 3 removed the tag or a bot did as I could not then find it on the RSN board, fair enough maybe it was due to the title I used for the RFC and something more general which I renamed to "Grechs comments" would have been a better tag to start with and I fully expected to be back at RFC today and although surprised when I saw the email about this this morning, now I am not, these 3 users use their superior knowledge and experience to maintain the BLP in its current negative state and go to extraordinary lengths to keep it that way Webwidget (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I now notice that Second Quantization/IRWolfie who posted this 'complaint' only yesterday is now "taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages in August or so" according to his talk page! Doesn't this editor's behavior speak for itself? Sasanack (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As for taking a wikibreak, that says nothing but that the editor feels he needs a break. Breaks are sometimes a really good idea and can prevent burnout. As for "as soon as there is any level of debate in the talk page of the article, Binksternet, IRWolfie (now Second Quantization) and LuckyLouie all seem to show up and join these discussions at the same time.", that's almost simply because these editors have the page on their watchlist, so activity on the talk page or article is obvious. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am very surprised by Dougweller's response about Second Quantization/IRWolfie's 'wikipedia break'. Of course people need breaks, but to take a 5 month break just one day after accusing a group of editors of foul play is not reasonable. Sasanack (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Since none of us actually know the reason for this break then I don't think we can say whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. There is no Administrative action to be taken here, can we please just drop this? He has been given a self-requested block so he can't even reply here if he wanted to, which I doubt that he does given that he's on a break. So please drop this unless someone has a specific request for a specific action to be taken against a specific editor. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done some thinking on this topic. Whilst I would like to have had some external feedback on his opening statement, I do not see the point in pursuing this in the light of his absence. If he decided to leave, I will respect that. For this reason I have also removed my previous comment where I stated he should be held accountable for his misleading statements. I will keep this discussion in mind however, should another debate involving Second Quantization/IRWolfie resurface at some point in the future. Hopefully it won't come to that. Arkatakor (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:STATicVapor

I would like STATic to be barred from contacting me and vice-versa. Lately he's been reverting a lot of my edits and I wish he would just simply leave me alone, especially since a lot of the edits have sources. Judging by his talk page, I don't seem to be the only one having issues with him. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide links to show he's said anything inappropriate or out of line to you? I mean, you're free to remove most comments from your talk page, so you can delete his comments, but he shouldn't really be "barred" unless he's doing something wrong. So far, most of them I've looked are him warning to follow crucial/major like WP:V or WP:OR, which strikes me as good, solid advice. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, if I were to take any issue with anyone's talk page messages, it would probably be Jgera's. That's interesting. All Caps and profanity isn't against any policy by itself, but it doesn't seem like you're trying to handle things civilly here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, any user may revert or otherwise challenge that material per our WP:Verifiability policy. You've provided no evidence that STATicVapor has been interacting with you in an inappropriate manner. OhNoitsJamie 17:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

STATicVapor should not template the regulars. That being said, your reaction is a much more actionable diff. I certainly don't see enough to enforce a dual ban on editing each other's talk pages over what I've seen. Best to move on and avoid each other and when you do focus on the content and how to make it better than taking it personally. Mkdw 18:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If the user was a knowledgeable regular editor, they would not be frequently violating WP:V, WP:NOR and adding speculation. Example of recent disruptive edits include , , and . That is clearly blockable criteria, my actions though not in the slightest. In no way have I ever attempted to harass or torment you, but this looks like clear harassment to me. I liked how you quickly replaced it when you started this thread too. STATic message me! 19:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those edits are awful. Especially that first one, which is both unsourced, original research, and terribly worded. Static was right to warn Jgera. If he doesn't like warnings, he needs to follow our policies better. (That may sound harsh, but Jgera is no newcomer. He should know by now.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. You should warn, revert, discuss, etc. with editors that are clearly not newcomers who are not following the policies and guidelines as you interpret. That is the collaborative and cleanup process. I am not disputing that nor criticizing you for that option which you rightly have available to you. I pointed out WP:DTR because the base warning templates are specifically for newcomers and using them on editors that have been around for awhile (regardless of their competence) is not only an incorrect usage of them as directed in their instructions, but it time and time again causes frustrations to flare which is exactly why we have that heavily cited essay. Mkdw 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

While Jgera5 was completely out of line with his initial comment on Static's page, I completely disagree with other comments being made about Jgera5's edits. Not one of those was disruptive, WP:OR maybe on the second one. But the others were sourced. The first one is always involves some sort of speculation when in progress, and Bleacher Report is not the only site out there calling it a face turn (I will save this argument for the appropriate talk page). And as for SummerSlam thing, that edit is still live using a reliable source so why did you cite it as an example of disruptive editing? Static has his own problems as much as he acts otherwise. Last night, he reverted a very reliable editor's addition of a new theme for WrestleMania without even trying to confirm or disprove the information. It took me less than 10 seconds to confirm the information he reverted and removed. And less than 2 minutes to re-add it and source it. Now granted, my comment on his talk page may have come across as harsh, and I apologize to you for that, but he's not one that needs to be acting like he's perfect, or even close. Static, you have a habit of reverting now and asking questions later. Now with a new or "vandalous" account, that's fine. But when you revert a respected and reliable regular, you need to re-evaluate your methods of how you browse for errors. Your excuse on your talk page I find insufficient. In short, I disagree with the ban from each other's talk pages, BUT Static needs to improve himself as much as Jgera5. CRRaysHead90 | 22:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor that does not understand our policy on verifiablity. It is what sets us different then any other simple wikia out there. If content is dubious and not cited by reliable sources, it is subject to immediate removal no matter who added it. All three were additions of WP:OR, and that was just three random plucked edits. Just because some content was cited (by unreliable sources) does not make the rest of the content addition that is, not WP:NOR. I never once acted or said I was perfect and your bad faith assumptions are quite ridiculous. A "respected and reliable regular" (I sill have no idea who added it), that does not cite a reliable source for all their additions to a encyclopedia, then they are not very "reliable" (do not know how an editor can be reliable) and should not be as "respected" as you presume. You can say my response to you was insufficient, but I was nothing but polite in response to your combative message. I do not believe there is a single thing I need to improve, but your attitude and viewpoint does definitely need improving. STATic message me! 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you did nothing wrong, and I would have done the exact same thing had someone made similar edits on my watchlist. (In fact, I pretty much just did.) The burden is on the person trying to add information to get it up to standard, if its not, you're free to challenge it. But anyways, Jgera says he's willing to drop it, so I suppose we're fine now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I acted in anger this morning and was sleep-deprived, and I do apologize for that. With that said, I do have other, more important things to worry about in reality. I think @Mkdw said it best: instead of banning each other and banning contact, let's just try to avoid contact where possible and try to collaborate peacefully on improving Misplaced Pages when we do need to contact each other. This is perhaps the first major dispute I've had on Misplaced Pages in nine years and I plan on it being the last. @STATic, I'm willing to put this behind me if you're willing to do the same. Jgera5 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb editing in violation of topic ban

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

User:BruceGrubb is topic banned form articles related to Christianity and articles about fringe theories . Today he has made a series of edits to Talk:Christ myth theory, an article on a fringe theory about Jesus: . Bruce has really never left the talk page, but has edited at intervals from various IP addresses: , , , , , , , , and see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/BruceGrubb/Archive. Many of these talk page posts recycle material he posted before he was topic banned. Not much can be done to prevent his IP edits short of a range block, I suppose, but the main account can be blocked, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin would do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Being that these are rather blatant violations, I have blocked BruceGrubb for three months. Tiptoety 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And beat me to it by just a few seconds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea article

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

Crimea article is under attack from vandals. Can we please have some admin oversight? Thank you. USchick (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Already protected. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record there was very little explaining when it came to edit summaries in the reverts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fast tracking RM for "Crimea" article

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

We need to fast track the requested move of "Crimea" → "Autonomous Republic of Crimea". People are getting confused to what does "Crimea" mean in the article title and they believe it refers to the "Republic of Crimea" and start making inappropriate changes to the article. You can make "Crimea" a redirect to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" but the move needs to be fast-tracked so that the article's title reflects unambiguously that it's about the Autonomous Republic and not about the newly formed "Republic".

What we do at this moment with Crimean peninsula or Crimea (disambiguation) is irrelevant, but the Autonomous Republic cannot reside at "Crimea" right now.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I already made mention of this at WP:AN. RGloucester — ☎ 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is consensus for all three articles. How about locking them down and only allowing admin approved edits? USchick (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It might be worthwhile, but it is best to get on with it. Let's get a third party admin in here, and get it done before more damage is done. RGloucester — ☎
      • Actually several editors have expressed concerns that this request is too soon. We have to use the most Common Name for this article and it's a bit too soon to make that determination. JOJ 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
        • "Crimea" right now refers to three different things. Hosting the Autonomous Republic at "Crimea" is causing unintended WP:VANDALISM 'cuz people think the article is about the Republic of Crimea. This is not about being too soon about something or about WP:COMMONNAME, this is about preserving the essence of Misplaced Pages which seeks to portray encyclopedic information. If this article stays hosted in "Crimea" we won't be able to upkeep that essence. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
        • "Several editors" (with regard to the move to "Autonomous Republic, not the "Peninsula" bit, which is best kept for later) being a tiny minority of the opinions expressed, which were diverse. It is not too early to make this determination. That article refers only to a state, just as Republic of Crimea refers only to a state. As there are two states claiming the title, then we surely can't make the choice between which one gets to be "Crimea", which would grievously violate NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 02:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
          • The large number of editors commenting only goes to prove that with all of the attention the article is getting, there will be people wanting to change the article name as a "knee jerk" reaction based on passion, rather than on what the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME state. Too bad too. JOJ

"This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view."

We must hold to WP:NPOV. We must be encyclopaedic. Common name does not override these principles. We do not choose a common name if it is loaded. We make compromises, as with Fixed-wing aircraft. RGloucester — ☎ 02:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, an admin could add a page notice about the differences. So when someone goes in to edit, it would appear. But honestly in this case I'm not sure if there is value to doing that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

At what point in time did Misplaced Pages become a Russian propaganda tool? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you referring to? We must hold to neutral point of view. At present, the territory is disputed. There are two separate state entities that claim the territory. We cannot favour one or the other, as that would not be neutral. That would be taking a side. It also ignores the actuality on the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We've had move-warring on these articles. The last thing we need now is hastily implemented further moves triggered by discussions on admin noticeboards, without secure consensus, side-stepping the normal processes. There is a requested move, which was only opened two days ago an is drawing a lot of participation. Let it play out normally. There is no need to "fast-track" anything. We can wait a few days more until the consensus there is clear. Please stop debating the content issue on this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Fast-tracking and not following the proper procedure will potentially illegitimise the requested move and cause more damage. We are not favouring one version over another, we are preserving the status quo until a consensus has been established. —Dark 08:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What do we do about the flow of edits in the meantime? Consensus with regard to the move to "Autonomous Republic" has been established at a much higher level then is usual for most request moves. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Our coverage of the Crimean crisis is now a total mess. Presently, we have the following articles Crimea, Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country). It is getting more confusing by the second, and I'm not sure what to do about. We need administrators to monitor the situation so we don't end up with the mess we have now, as with the two separate Republic of Crimea articles. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • *snicker* You think that's bad, check out the Ireland articles sometime… --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I swear, it is quite a good thing that the break-up of the Russian Empire didn't happen in realtime on Misplaced Pages. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• This just appeared in the news regarding the craziness here on wikipedia do we really want more headlines to come or can we make the Crimea article more neutral? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent coverage! Yes, we want more headlines just like that. Thank you for posting it Knowledgekid87. USchick (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I support speeding up the move process. There seems to be a general consensus in favour of it. And now there is also a discussion on the talk page about whether to change the topic of the article. We can't have both; either we move it, or change its topic. So we need to decide, and hopefully soon. CodeCat (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I once again voice my support for a fast track of Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The situation at present is untenable, especially with Crimea] fully protected despite rapidly evolving events. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I support having an admin close the move discussion quickly. There's already plenty of input in the thread. The 7-day waiting rule was not designed for current events.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I too strongly agree the move process should be sped up. We can have a more extensive debate as to whether Crimea should be a disambiguation page or direct to the geographical area or something else, but for now, Misplaced Pages is in violation of its own NPOV guideline by hosting the article for Autonomous Republic of Crimea under the Crimea article name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Biggest Loser Australia: Challenge Australia

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

The_Herald

He keeps adding in fake and unsourced information the page

Gbold1 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Persistent upload of copyright violations

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

User:SergeiXXX has uploaded several files locally which he claimed were his work, as this one for example, where the source is given as "Took photo myslef" in "February of 2012". As it happens this file had been uploaded to another website on 29 July 2011, so several months before it was supposedly created. I checked a second file (File:Na Dony.jpg) which also turned out to be a copyvio, and his talk page is littered with notices about copyright violation, so as a precautionary measure it would be better if all his file uploads were deleted as likely copyright violations.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has nuked them all. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl civility complaint

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

Formerly: I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk

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

This Requested Move I started was closed by BrownHairedGirl. After conferencing on the closer's talkpage (stage 2), I brought the closing to Move review (stage 3). That ongoing MR discussion is being spoiled by BHG by personal accusations in two separate subthreads (aka WP:ASPERSIONS).

In current stage 3 on Move review, BHG first contributed this with wording "falsehood" and "dishonest", which lead to this subthead with me asking to withdraw these unproven and bad faith accusations, and to return to rational content discussion. In another subthread in the Move review, after a contribution by co-accused feline1 , this accusation followed, again unspecified, blanketing two editors, and a noreply suggestion "enough". This thread followed: .

From stage 2, this background. In the aftertalk on closer's talkpage, BHG made unspecified accusations against two editors in one statement . Right after that post the discussion was closed with a noreply status . (Though this happened). Understandably closer's talkpage is under the rule of WP:OWNTALK as far as closing and deletion &tc goes. But I note this: in this situation the OWNTALK control was invoked in a discussion that followed the users admin action. By closing the RM, the closer (admin) made it essential to allow discussion on their talkpage. Then casting accusations & closing in one go is not in the wiki spirit. And of course no personal attacks are allowed even on one's own talkpage. This being a background, it does not need invention as far as I can see.

Stage 3 is on a Review page, which requires a serious level of discussion. Still it has two castings of accusations by BHG. (Interesting sidenote. I read the MR note saying that "Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed". Does that mean that all other editors are allowed to do so?). I seek to have these taken back, and that someone can convince BrownHairedGirl that this is not appropriate behaviour. Not in general, and not by an admin-in-the-case on a Review page. This be taken wide, not just about isolated words. As the discussion stands now, it is useless or impossible to enter into content, rational discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Notified BrownHairedGirl and Move review page -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See the section below, which I posted about the same time as DePiep opened this section.

I have been subject to a bizarrely lengthy wikilawyering exercise by DePiep, who has repeatedly quoted my words out of context in order to misrepresent me, while Feline1 makes a long series of personal attacks.

The substantive issue is quite simple. A malformatted move request ended up being discussed at two locations, which is procedurally disruptive. Taking both discussions as a whole, 3 editors opposed the move, while the nominator and one other editor supported it. I judged that on both procedural and substantive grounds, there was not a consensus to proceed with the move,

I tried to explain my closure to the two editors who supported the move, who are quite entitled to reject my explanation and seek a move review. However, it is unacceptable to subject the closing admin to raw personal attacks (as Feine1 has done), or to abuse the explanations of the closing admin by repeatedly quoting them out of context in order to misrepresent the closer's reasoning. If a closing admin's explanations are abused in this way, then the simple solution is to say nothing beyond the closing statement, which I think would be a sad outcome.

If a closing a discussion and explaining the reasoning leads to this much drama and attack, is at any wonder that WP:RM#Backlog is so long? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

re BrownHairedGirl. So now for the occasion you are going into content reasoning. If it is about quoting wrong or reading wrong, then cut out the backhanded bad faith smears I diffed and stay within ratio talk. You can do that right now in your earlier contributions. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep:. In response to your questions on my talk page about the closure, I put in the time to provide as full an explanation as possible. Instead of treating my explanations as an aid to understand my reasoning, you have been mining them to try to find any glimmer of inconsistency which you can use in a wikilawyering sense to undermine the integrity of what was in the end a fairly simple closure; a closure supported so far by every uninvolved editor who has expressed a substantive opinion in the review.

In the course of doing that, you sadly chose to repeatedly take my words out of context and misrepresent them. As I have noted before, if those misrepresentations were good faith errors on your part, then you are free to correct or strikeout the relevant parts of your contributions. But so long as you let them stand, I am unable to assume that you have been acting in good faith. If you make open smears on me by misrepresenting through misleading quotation, then it's a bit rich to complain of "backhanded smears" when your allegations are exposed as false.

3 editors opposed the move, and 2 supported it. Rightly or wrongly, your proposal did not attract the support needed to pass, and the drama which you and Feline1 have created all stems from your unwillingness to accept the fact that your reasoning did not win the support you hoped. In pursuit of your desire to proceed with the move despite the lack of support, that you have chosen to mine my explanations in the hope of finding any little thing which allows you to throw muck at me. That probably sounds harsh and judgemental, but I can see no other explanation for (as one example) your attempt to claim here that I wrote that a even "deliberate exercise in disruption" would not matter. For a start, that was a theoretical point unrelated to the actual closure, and it didn't belong in the move review. But even if that was a relevant point, it was false. As I pointed out to you in my reply, that was a complete inversion of what I wrote.

Yet after mudsliging irrelevant falsehoods at me, you refuse to retract this nonsense, and now demand that I "stay within ratio talk". Isn't it time for you to cut the drama? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl If you want to discuss about arguments, then first remove those accusations, wholeheartedly. If you want to show that I quoted wrong, first remove the bad faith accusations I mentioned. Clean up your edits. BF accusations are not needed nor helpful to make any point you want to (in other words: you're supposed to can do without). Even in your post here, you mix up arguments and accusations. I am not going to argue with you under the cloud of those accusations. It is not up to me to sort out which arguments are serious to respond to, and which are judgements I should ignore. I find puzzling that it looks like I am the first person to say this to you. It is basic discussion behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed this complaint and, like a number of other editors and administrators who have commented on the move review about this dispute have said, I see nothing wrong with BHG's comments. DePiep, you have made your case and should step back and let the community comment at the move review. Separately, I was strongly considering blocking User:feline1 for personal attacks and disruption (if you don't want to click through to the MR, then all the evidence you need is in that collapsed comment above), though ultimately I decided not to. NW (Talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Re DePiep, you have made your case: Dpmuk said something alike . At least Dpmuk noted how they came across that way (bolding and calling it a falsehood didn't help). To clarify, for Dpmuk too: apart from my OP there, my contributions were not about content (as you seem to think), but about BrownHairedGirl's bad faith accusations. That was my point (twice). I'm not sure which other 'editors and admins' you refer to, AFAIK none referred to this point of bad faith accusations (except feline1). About this topic of bad faith accusations I said that it prevented entering the rational and content discussion. -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, other editors who have participated in the move review have focused on the determination as made, and have exhibited no influence from the comments of which you complain. bd2412 T 16:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my perception too. NuclearWarfare/NW is invited to give diffs and maybe tell more about that curious 'editors and administrators' detailing which appears to matter on the review page. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Struck because I probably misunderstood. See Nil Einne below. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies then; perhaps I misread Dpmuk and Xoloz's comments on that page. My earlier statement perhaps should have read "I see at most minor fault by BHG. It was certainly not sanctionable, even given the higher standards I would hold experienced editors and administrators (who know what the community considers to be acceptable editing norms) to. Furthermore, your tone did not serve to calm matters down but instead has unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict into a sprawling discussion across two pages. Your point about the merits of the move review was made clear by perhaps your second or third post to Misplaced Pages:Move review. Let's just leave it at that." NW (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have partially misunderstood what BD2412 is saying (and if it isn't what they were saying I would make the point myself).

From what I understand their primary point is not whether or not NW is correct (which is a valid question but they were replying to you not NW), but that contrary to your statement above that the "bad faith accusations I said that it prevented entering the rational and content discussion", the accusations had little bearing on how people saw the closure.

Therefore there was nothing "prevent"ing you from "entering the rational and content discussion". If you had some important points that you failed to make that you feel would have influenced how people saw the closure, this is really your fault.

Even if I accept that bad faith accusations were made, your best bet would have been to ask for them to be withdrawn and then either dropped the issue or take in to an appropriate place like ANI if you did not get a satisfactory outcome. There was nothing forcing you to continue the fruitless discussion nor anything stopping you "entering the rational and content discussion". (Heck even if you continued to complain there as you did, you could still have seperately "entering the rational and content discussion".)

And since the accusations didn't influence people either way, the fact that they were there didn't seem to effect the move review in any other way.

(In other words, while presuming your claims are correct, you may have a legitimate complaints about the unfairness of the comments, they were not turning the move review againt you.)

I don't really understand what "rational and content discussion" you are referring to anyway. The dispute relates to a WP:move review. A move review is not the place to raise content issues nor to rediscuss the basis for the move. But instead it's simply to discuss whether the closure or result of the WP:RM was proper considering the discussion that had already taken place.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re NW. My tone. How could I forget. Sure that must be all there is then. (Note: "your point about the merits of the move review". That is still a misreading of my posts, after my 15:22 post here. Which music do you need with it?). I disagree with your opinion that I "unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict". I find bad faith accusation not minor, ANI is the proper route to go, and clearly some form of escalation was needed to get things clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

re Nil Einne. That clarifies, thanks. I struck my misunderstanding. To be clear: wording "rationale and content discussion" I used as opposed to a 'discussion' by hurling unproven accusations and personal attacks.

On why I wrote prevented entering (the rationale discussion). The 'prevention' is by reasoning. Here it is. Assumptions about (bad) intentions are neigh impossible to address or deny (like gossip). Maybe it is possible to enter the discussion about rationale arguments when arguments are wrapped in personal attacks. One also can try in the reply to talk around words like "dishonest". (I do not know of WP advice or examples for these). But that gives some weight to the whole statement and it is not up to me to disentangle serious and bad from a contribution. The contributor is the one to clear their post. For this, it is my sound choice to stay away from any argument discussion as long as the accusations therein are maintained. It is not up to others to require that I engage with a bad faith (BF) accusor, even if only for the good parts. Simple: I want the BF accusations away before I engage. Remember that it is still the BF accusor who is spoiling the discussion, not the responder. I agree that other editors on the page are not involved, and I could engage with their arguments. Of course I have no beef with those uninvolved editors, it's just that I won't respond there. Because the whole discussion remains spoiled elsewhere. And I wanted to know clear on whether these edits is allowed to pass, and stay in place until closing time. Would I reply without questioning, I do not know whether the closer would reject accusations or give them weight.

Re "Even if ... your best bet would have been ...". Isn't that exactly what I did? I asked withdrawal there first (diffs above), and then take it to ANI: here we are :-). -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What all this thread comes down to is simply that DePiep has repeatedly used out-of-context quotation to misrepresent me (5 specific instances are detailed in the discussion), and demands that criticism of that extraordinary run of misrepresentation be withdrawn before DePiep will provide any explanation of that misrepresentation, let alone withdrawal of it. Meanwhile, Feline1 was hurling a barrage of straightforward personal abuse at me, for which they have now thankfully been blocked.

This is all about a malformed discussion where 2 editors advocated a move and 3 opposed it. There is no sign at all that any uninvolved editor sees any reason to agree with DePiep's bizarre demand that it be treated as a consensus to move, so DePiep based the request for move review on a pile of misrepresentations, including repeated false allegations that I miscounted.

Despite this barrage of nonsense-on-stilts, DePiep is still keeping up the FUD campaign, by escalating it here to demand that DePiep-the-serial-misquoter be treated as hard-done-by. All because DePiep doesn't want to accept that a well-founded proposal was rejected by editors using well-founded counter-arguments, and because Feline1 believes that a) the closer should have imposed their own personal views on the discussion, and b) the closer should have made sure that those views accorded with those of Feline1.

As I noted elsewhere, when closing a discussion creates so much manufactured wikidrama, why bother? Why not just let WP:RM#Backlog grow even longer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Take care. NuclearWarfare might not like your tone. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations with battle attitude.

Is there a reason this rant is tolerated on this page? Why can't BHG write a coherent reasoning without resorting to emotional judgements and uncivility? Does BHG let this happen in other places too, in admin performances even? Can some admin with a clear head hat this, with that applicable "more heat than light" title? For me, I want BrownHairedGirl to stop and withdraw this ranting. As is the topic and original title of this thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, you want to divert the issue away from your series of unrepentant misrepresentations of a closing admin who was kind enough to take the time to explain their closure.

Having gone into battle on my talk page, battle on move review, battle here, you now complain that you feel you in a ... battle. Surprise!

You have the option of winding the whole thing up by withdrawing your misrepresentations, if you choose to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• So far, one admin has responded earlier (and one more replied on a detail). I'd like to read from more uninvolved admins here. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the interactions and do not find BHG's comments to be anything but fully appropriate responses to your own, Piep. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline? How can BHG's first response (diff in OP after 'BHG first contributed this'; "dishonest") possibly be related to a response I had not made? -DePiep (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just a general comment, I have come into a few brush-ups with BHG, but they were almost solely to my misunderstanding of arcane Misplaced Pages processes and guidelines. They remained civil and patiently tried to show me where I was missing some points of information. I'm not saying BHG is an expert but they were kind enough to work with my gaps in knowledge so I'm willing to give them a pass if they in any way lost their cool. I don't see a pattern of abuse. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reviewing the diffs, one can see BHG's frustration at times, but she does not seem to be rude or abusive or warranting other administrator review. Does not seem actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to echo's Sportfan5000's opinion. I've been corrected by BHG several times, especially when I started becoming a more active editor months ago, and I guess I would describe the interaction as business-like. She always had policy and experience on her side and I generally learned a lot about Misplaced Pages procedure in the process. We don't always agree but I believe she is incredibly fair, especially in her admin duties. I definitely don't believe there are any valid claims of "abuse" as BHG goes to great lengths to explain her decisions, should any editor have questions about them. Liz 00:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Someguy1221 and User:Georgewilliamherbert regarding the appropriateness of BHG's comments on this occasion, which I have also reviewed. If there is any behavioral issue here it is with User:DePiep, not with BHG. Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also agree with User:Sportfan5000 and User:Liz regarding BHG's behavioural pattern. BHG has been vigorous in opposition to some of my calls, too, but always civil and to the point. Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also agree. There's nothing actionable here, and I suggest we close. I'd suggest a trouting for DePiep, if anything. Jusdafax 03:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that four admins base their conclusion on personal experiences in other situations. Since there is "no pattern", there is no incident? Weird logic. -DePiep (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's only weird because you have misquoted it. There is no incident; That assertion stands alone, on the evidence. The pattern gives some further degree of comfort; We wouldn't expect there to be an incident. But the main point is that the allegation of an incident has itself been weighed in the balance and found wanting. We're not relying on the pattern in forming this conclusion. Andrewa (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Make that one, plus three non-admins. Only Andrewa, Someguy1221 and Georgewilliamherbert are on the list. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my review request . -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Feline1

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

A wikilawyering move review at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014_March#Period_1_element is being abused as a venue for a continuing a barrage of personal attacks against me by Feline1 (talk · contribs).

The first interaction I had with this editor was on my talk page after closing an RM discussion, where Feline1's first post accused me of "obtuse daftness". When I tried in good faith to explain Misplaced Pages procedure and the role of a closer and how I reached a decision by trying to implement long-standing principles about consensus-formation, Feline1's subsequent posts on my talk page involved yet more abuse "a cult member" and asked "With admins like these, who needs vandals".

In the move review, Feline1's personal attacks include: "Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk?", "cult-member who can only parrot cult-speak phrases!", "a complete mentalist", and "What are you in real life, a traffic warden?".

The move review has been open for only 20 hours, and it has already been used to subject me to more personal attacks than I have received in my previous 8 years as an editor. It is very important that admins are held accountable for their actions, and having closed the move request, I was happy to explain my actions. However, in this case I have found that every step I have taken has opened me to personal abuse from Feline1 (talk · contribs), and to bizarre wikilawyering by DePiep (talk · contribs). The latter has been engaged in a repeated game of taking out of context quotes from my explanations of the closure, and using them to misrepresent my reasoning.

Please can an uninvolved admin review the situation?

The move request was at Talk:Period 1 element#Requested_move and at Misplaced Pages talk:ELEMENTS#Rename_pages_.27Period_X_element.27_into_.27Period_X.27.

The discussion on my talk page is archived at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 030#Closing_RM_Period_1_element and at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 030#Closing_RM_Period_1_element_.28take_2.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think any objective human being will see that my remarks to BrownHairedGirl were valid, balanced and justified by the political climate at the time. Moreover, she has only raised this incident report to deflect from the one already raised about her own conduct, immediately above on this noticeboard. She could easily avoid me having to complain about her obtuse daftness by not being so daftly obtuse, but she vehemently refuses to, and therein lies the problem.--feline1 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Feline1 has responded above with yet another dose of personal abuse. I notified Feline of this discussion, and the response was Oh grow up. Is WP:NPA still in force? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I gave you some good advice. And did you heed it? Did you, as it were, "grow up" (i.e. stop this pointless bickering, calm down, behave yourself, etc etc)? No! You didn't. You come back bickering all the more. You're really quite incorrigible.--feline1 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And at the move review, Feline1 has posted a personal attack at the uninvolved admin User:Dpmuk, who commented on the conduct of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided an analogy to characterize the situation which I feel was apposite, balanced, fair, valid and made in good faith. I stand by it, and would happily grant the film rights to any who wanted them.--feline1 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Also note another personal attack on me by Feline1 in the section above accusing me of "willful irrationality". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well for the love of god, could you not maybe stop being willfully irrational? What you need to understand is that WP:NPA does not give you impunity to behave like an engine of chaos, free from having anyone criticize you.--feline1 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of an editor's actions is fine, and I happily that it is part is part of any admin's role to welcome a civilly-expressed concern that an admin action was erroneous. That can easily be done without attacks on the character of another editor, but instead of critiquing my actions, Feline has chosen from the outset to attack my character. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, *you* chose from the outset to attack *my* character (some blether about how I'd deliberately chosen not to use the correct !vote syntax so as to be disruptive, or something), and descended from there. Clearly you have some problem with the teleological sequence of events. I ask you again: are you drunk?--feline1 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet more personal abuse from Feline1, based on Feline1's failure to understand the sequence of events.

The comment to which you refer was when I wrote "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it." That does not criticise your action at all; it simply explains how I interpreted your contribution. It does not accuse you of disruption or any form of misconduct, and it does not mention you by name, in no way is it a personal attack.

That was my only comment relating to you when you chose to accuse me of obtuse daftness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Feline1 blocked for 2 days. NW (Talk) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See above, which is a parallel thread about the same page, I opened minutes earlier. It has diffs. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

editors removing other's comments from article and user talk pages

I've noticed in last few months this is becoming more and more common, and is in violation of WP policies, guidelines, and spirit!

User:Bobrayner and User:IJA for some reason dislike my very constructive comment on Talk:Kosovo War. In addition, this Bobrayner user keeps insulting me and calling me a sock. I don't mind people investigating if I am one, but I do mind people labeling me when I am not.

Cheers, 93.86.166.167 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is OK to revert edits by sockpuppets. Without that, our content on Serbia/Kosovo would swiftly be overrun by serious NPOV problems.

It is not OK for an editor to appear out of nowhere and - without logging in to their account - call somebody a "dick vandal" for reverting a sock.

I had thought that the recent AN/I thread was a closed book since two IPs were blocked; now there's a third, a fourth... bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

News for you, there are thousands of IP addresses. Yes, you are a vandal 178.222.56.24 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your comment on the talk page because it was an unconstructive nationalist rant about NATO loosing the Kosovo War based on the morale of Serbs forces (which is utterly ridiculous), this sort of thing belongs on Blog/ Forum not a wikipedia talk page perWP:NOTAFORUM. The moral of Serb soldiers is trivial at best and this is against WP:TRIVIA. We don't need SPAM on wikipedia. Regards IJA (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a rant, I cited sources, from few sides: American government site, Serbian news site, and French Guardian. No personal rants as you like to see them. If moral of soldiers in article about war is trivial to you..., than remove the relevant section from the article. That was my point, remove cherry picked quotation, or add additional ones for the sake of NPOV. And we don't need yelling on wikipedia either, so stop labeling what other people are writing. If you have nothing to say, skip to another article, avoid confrontation and dis-pleasantries. Like you wrote, wikipedia is neither forum, trivia, or spam site, so stop adding to the drama by being rude and uncivil. 178.222.56.24 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a load of nonsense, Wars aren't won by having a higher level of morale at the end of the conflict. IJA (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Original IP blocked for disruptive editing, additional ones for sockpuppetry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Georgewilliamherbert. bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Calling someone a "dick vandal" in an edit summary is not ok, but the restored post appears to criticize the article's neutrality, and it then proposes three pieces of sourced content for possible addition to the article. IMO it's not that much of a rant. The article currently has a section "Morale" which claims a morale problem on the Serbs' part until post-NATO intervention withdrawal, re-inserted by Bobrayner a few days ago] (I didn't dig deep enough to find when it was originally inserted or by who, but it was removed in October 2013). The reverted talkpage post gave three different sources claiming the opposite, a viewpoint that's not in the article at all, and there is some contentious talkpage discussion about this issue from November. I have no idea which side is right, but I thought the idea of WP:NPOV is to include both, so at first glance the initial talkpage poster was correct in pointing out a problem. I have to wonder whether the other side is trying to WP:OWN the article. Removing the talkpage post doesn't seem justified as far as I can tell.

  As a more general matter, I see a lot of drama about talkpage reversions and it comes across to me as disruptive to revert someone else's talkpage post unless it's blatantly over the top. The amount of traffic on the Kosovo War talkpage is not all that large and so there is no need to clamp down on it more than any other article. I haven't posted on that specific page, but I remember abandoning some other (unrelated) articles because I felt that similar reversions made collegial editing impossible. So I think these removals should only be done with quite a lot more caution. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The reverted talk page post you refer to does make three comments about morale but they don't seem to be what you say.

One is that "NATO did not achieve a military victory as it failed to destroy .... the soldiers’ morale". But no where is it stated in our article that destroying morale was an important part of the military goals. Nor does this dispute what our article does say on morale.

Note that our article only talks about morale before the NATO intervention and when the Serb forces were withdrawing. It doesn't say anything about the morale during the intervention or how the intervention affected the morale. We can presume morale just before the intervention was low as our article implies it was a problem, but once the intervention began it may have changed. (And from what it does say there's no way you can draw any conclusion about the reasons for the morale change by the time of withdrawal. It's easily possible that morale was high during the withdrawal because it had been ever increasing during intervention and they saw NATO as having failed and they were leaving with their heads held high. Or perhaps it remained low just before withdrawal but increase during withdrawl because they were finally getting out of a hellish war which involved NATO which they felt had no purpose. Or any other number of things.)

The other comment was "NATO campaign is showing significant progress and results in .... eroding morale. Two important signs of sinking morale, he said, are reports of desertions from combat units in Kosovo and a growing effort by young Yugoslavs to evade reserve call-ups". This has minor relation to the first in that implies morale shrunk even more during the intervention. It may further clarify what is in our article (namely it suggests morale got even worse during the intervention but had increase by the time of the pullout) but that's about it. It definitely doesn't dispute what our article says. (It does relate to the other comment the IP made but that's neither here nor there.) But since this was effectively wartime propaganda (it's on defense.gov and is apparently from the American Forces Press Service), I don't think it's trustworth.

The final comment about morale was "It (NATO) portrayed a Serb army whose morale was crumbling from mounting casualties, shortages of food and fuel and lack of sleep, as it dispersed into smaller and weaker units to escape the relentless bombing." Note only does this address anything our article says about morale, but it doesn't really say much useful. All it really says is that NATO's propaganda campaign implied the Serb army morale crumbled during the conflict which we saw direct evidence of from the earlier source. But this isn't particularly surprising. And while the source seems to imply NATO's propaganda campaign told fibs, it doesn't actually directly say the crumbling morale bit was a lie (which again wouldn't be surprising and doesn't seem particularly important) or otherwise further comment on the Serb forces morale and I checked the whole source this time.

To be honest, I don't really understand this concentration on morale either. There may be merit to mention a bit more about morale, but the IP seemed to make a poor case for it (since their sources don't seem that useful for what we want to add) and seems to be concentrating mostly on the wrong things. The claim as our article currently makes, that morale was low even before the intervention seems slightly significant if properly support. The current claim on morale at withdrawal also seems slightly significant if properly supported.

IMO (although this isn't really an ANI manner) it may also be useful if we include very minor commentary on the reasons for the higher morale at the end, and how the NATO campaign affected morale but this should be kept to a low level and would need good sources.

There are other things that seem more important that the IP hinted at like the claims NATO lied about how much they were destroying (which again wouldn't be surprising but depending on the extent of the lies may be worth mentioning). And particularly that NATO failed in their goal to protect the population etc. But I haven't read the rest of the article carefully enough to check if the article already addresses this.

P.S. It's worth remembering that "morale was a serious problem" is distinct from "failed to destroy .... the soldiers’ morale". In fact if morale was already a serious problem before you even got involved, destroying the morale would mean you would need to make a significant dent in something which was already a serious problem. Our article actually already implies that this didn't happen since they were not so demoralised that their morale hadn't increased by the time they withdrew (as I've said, whether the morale increase because of the withdrawal or morale had actually increase because of the intervention or whatever isn't specified).

Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current bit of content on morale emerged from a compromise. I originally wrote something based on content from a source which said that morale was very poor; another established editor (and some socks) removed it, preferring something with slightly weaker sourcing which painted morale as being very good; so I went for a compromise version which put both claims in context. I don't think this article needs to cover morale in great depth, but it is often overlooked in other articles about conflicts, which instead focus on technical stuff and dates of battles &c. bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of consensus 77.46.217.191 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) ps. WP:IAR>>WP:BLOCK

KasparasWikiEditor (genre warrior) back at it once previous block expires

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

KasparasWikiEditor is just off a 31 hour block for unexplained changes in genre on songs. Today, dozens more, all with no explanation:

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

The changes seem random, maybe some are reasonable. But no discussion, no edit summaries, talk page full of warnings, I just thought someone ought to take a look.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely... well, at least until they start discussing things. Dpmuk (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts performed on Sevastopol article without explanation

Can an admin please serve as mediator at Talk:Sevastopol#Reverts performed under claim of NPOV violation without explanation?

A user has reverted my edits twice even though they adhere to WP:NPOV. He requested that I engage him in his talk page but then when I do so he refuses to talk about the matter there and then proceeds to close the discussion on his talk page.

This article is highly controversial and his reverts seem to be a violation of WP:1RR due to WP:ARBEURO.

It seems this user is simply reverting to his personal view of the article while the discussion is ongoing rather than engage in a collaborative discussion and tag stuff by using {{NPOV}}, {{NPOV-inline}}, or {{undue}}.

I didn't revert further but right now the article is in a state that violates WP:NPOV and I'm concerned that if I revert once more that I myself may violate WP:1RR and be sanctioned under WP:ARBEURO.

Can someone please mediate this as this content is at ARBCOM level?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• The referred user is JOJ, has reminded Ahnoneemoos of the BRD cycle and has redirected to the article talk page. This does not look like a conduct issue. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. He claims the edits violate NPOV but has not been able to explain how except that, "that's my opinion, period." See the problem? My edits are backed up by reliable sources and adhere to WP:NPOV but right now I'm stuck 'cuz I can't revert him back because of WP:1RR even though he reverted me twice. Isn't that the exact definition of WP:EDITWAR? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This is about determining the weight of claims by Russia. Users are still discussing. This is not a conduct issue yet. Since the article is highly controversial, smaller edits would be more suitable. Ëzhiki likes Ahnoneemoos' version. This user may help continuing the edits, but it would be better to discuss them in the talk page first. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • That's against WP:FIVEPILLARS and against WP:OWN. Changes don't need to be discussed first before applying them to an article. See also WP:BEBOLD. This user has effectively created a blockade to a very sensible change that makes the article adhere to WP:NPOV rather than lopside it through systemic bias in favor of Ukraine's POV. We call this WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Specifically WP:STONEWALL: "Removing a large addition for a minor error. If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up)." The user didn't do any, and instead preferred to perform a full revert. Per H:REV: " reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." This is why I asked for the intervention of an admin as right now the article violates NPOV by being lopsided towards the Ukrainian POV that Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city when the truth is that its current state is disputed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
        • BRD may be an essay but that's probably more because it's easy to misapply and the policies it's based on are sufficient (remember BEBOLD may be an important guideline, WP:Consensus is policy so neither can be ignored). Generally speaking, you are unlikely to win a debate by arguing a person should not have reverted in the case of a content dispute involving a recent change and one or two reverts where 1RR does not apply. (You may be able to argue a person too readily reverts in an RFCU.) If the person is discussing the changes then your best option is to continue discussion and use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
          • And it should be noted that the "only an essay" BRD is, in fact, a reflection of WP:CONSENSUS on how Misplaced Pages works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
            • This is now at DRN (Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sevastopol). BTW, WP:BRD is an essay, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT is a policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dqfn13 replacing content

I am reporting an incident with Dqfn13 who keeps replacing visual content on several pages and templates. Dqfn13 dislikes Sodacan's work and instead feels that the work by Henk Boelens is "more accurate". Dqfn13 feels that Sodacan's file is heraldically incorrect and violates Dutch heraldic rules, but has not provided any sources for this claim. Sodocan is noted on this project as a heraldic expert and artist, and has created a work which despite any visual differences does match the blazon of the Dutch coat of arms and therefore it is not "incorrect", it simply looks different.

The comments on my talk page and in edit summaries by Dqfn13 are also rather inflammatory, especially "Learn the DUTCH heraldic rules or stay away fron DUTCH coats of arms." which presents possible ownership and nationality issues.

The places where this issue has taken place are:

• Template:History of the Netherlands
• Template:House of Orange-Nassau
• Template:NLColMin
• Portal:European Union/Member States Intro
• Template:Infobox Dutch Royalty styles
• Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Coat of arms of the Netherlands

I can not revert these changes again without violating 3RR and therefore require intervention. As Dqfn13 has not provided any sources for their claims and this is a cosmetic dispute, I consider this forceful replacement of one work with another to be vandalism. Fry1989 19:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been notified on your Dutch talkpage (in English) about this problem by two Duth writers with both notable experience on these subject. Both named here: Arch (now known under a different name) and me. We both have given reasons for ower edits, you only said: the file matches and therefor your reasons are POV. And even though I've started a discussion you reply: I don't have to answer you with that attitude. Dqfn13 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And that flaming comment... that was after you've rejected any discussion... Dqfn13 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about the Dutch-language project nor does any decision/consensus over there apply to over here. You need sources, and your rag-tag group of users who all like Henk Boelens' work haven't provided any sources here or there. Please provide some sort of source that Sodacan's work is "inaccurate" and "wrong", rather than just stating "It doesn't match Dutch rules, so STAY AWAY from Ducth coats of arms!". Fry1989 19:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me my bad English, I'll trying to share my thougts about this matter... Please look at those several excisting images of the CoA:

1 2 3 4 5 6

Al the images are showing, as everybody can see, that the claws are never to far over the shield, they dont touching figures ons the shield. Why? Just becausse that is disrespectful. Thats why there the Dutch heraldic rules prescribe not to do that... The older version of the CoA of Sodacan had a (wrong) red mantle before, when some people started to replace the image with this error for a correct one, the mantle was suddenly changed in purple 10 days later (see history) and once replaced again, by using "global replace". My drawing was declared "superseded" on the same day I did upload it! The correct image was replaced by an incorrect image, with the red mantle, and claws over the figures. An older version of this CoA by the same person has several minor errors too. A request to make adjudgements in 2013 did not get any response. I know how user Fry thinks about rules; on the Commons did he get blocked multiple times for Edit warring and Disruption. (see his history: "The rules are a joke, and people like you take them way too seriously like it's a matter of life and death. So somebody uses two colours that aren't supposed to touch according to your laws, does that hurt anyone? No." Seems to me that the rules are anything that matters, and more we should be seriously about this. This is an encyclopedia, wich must give the right facts, not just on words, but images too. Coats of Arms or Flags should look like they should look, not personal taste. Dqfn13 did the right thing to replace them again, as Fry disagrees he should discuss the matter instead doing a blockreguest or he should try to communicate with Sodacan and fix the error. Fry wants sources? I'll dare you too search for just ONE little source wichs claims your made liberty to place claws, hands, wings etc. over, or TOUCHING the shieldfigure(s). I'll wil give you 3 sources for every source you provide. Fair? I'll give one away: Rietstap (important Dutch heraldic writer) writes: ...rekent men tot de schildouders ook de mens- en dierfiguren die het schild niet aanraken, docht er naast staat of liggen zonder iets te doen behalve dat zij soms een helm of kroon vasthouden.... "...counting to the shieldholders also the human- en animalfigures who are not touching the shield, but standing or lie next without doing something, besides holding a helmet or crown". Regards Archengigi (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (alias Henk Boelens)

The attitude present here is not required. As for your sources, Sodacan's work appears to match perfectly. Again it is simply a different style. As long as it matches the blazon, it is heraldically correct. This is again a cosmetic dispute and that is an improper reason to edit war and change images. And yes, I said those things because they're true, you users over on the Dutch side of Misplaced Pages are completely freaking out (and edit warring and imposing POV in the process) because Sodacan's work looks different from Henk Bolens' work, but you don't really have any sources that one is "correct" and one is "wrong". Henk, you really need to calm down and take a breather. I make images superseded on Commons every day, tonnes of users do, and you're acting like it was some sort of personal hunt or attack when in reality it was simple Commons maintenance on my part. The problem here is clearly you and your Dutch-Wiki supporters who are the ones who have a visual preference, not any actual problem with Sodacan's work. Fry1989 17:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't offer a source for your statement.Archengigi (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Which statement? The fact that this is a cosmetic dispute? The argument that Sodacan's file has the lions' claws stretch out "too far" is a subjective cosmetic personal opinion, not a heraldic error. Fry1989 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrator misbehaving

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

User:Georgewilliamherbert just blocked some IPs for sockpupetry, and I see he even has no CheckUser rights, so he could not have done the investigation. How can he be so abusive and block IPs without any check whatsoever? 178.221.101.86 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins don't need CheckUser to make sockpuppetry blocks ... we often call it the WP:DUCK test. Should we apply it to you as well? DP 20:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#abuse_of_user_rights. Please don't Forum Shop. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where was this supposed "just blocked some IPs"? I see one from two days ago for vandalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DP, you beat me to it, I was going to quack too ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion, latest IP blocked. You don't have to be a checkuser, or even an admin, to see that all of these IPs are from Serbia, and they're all doing exactly the same things. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this case, but it seems like admins vary a lot regarding what passes the WP:DUCK test and what doesn't. For some admins, suspicion of socking is enough to block an editor indefinitely. Considering the intense scrutiny that occurs at SPI and how many cases the checkusers refuse because of a lack of good evidence, it seems unfair that there are no set criteria at all for the Duck test and, for some admins, the bar is very low.

This is where someone asks for diffs and I don't have any, it's just an observation because no one really tracks IPs that are blocked or brings their cases up on AN/I. In fact, I rarely even see block notices on IP talk pages or any explanation of how they could appeal a block. It matters because once an account is tagged as a sock account, it tarnishes any future work that editor might make. I think admins should have to make a case for any account they block, particularly for an indefinite block. This isn't an undue burden, there should always be a good reason for a block. Liz 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that lately administrators are more preoccupied to make use of their administrative rights to block users to their hearts content rather than to have an eye on the quality of information that articles should convey. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, here is the list of identical edits made by a succession of IPs on Talk:Kosovo War:

• Revision as of 17:01, 2014 March 18 178.223.26.230 178-223-26-230.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs - blocked for disruptive editing (see earlier edits by this editor)
• Revision as of 02:33, 2014 March 19 109.93.20.242 109-93-20-242.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)
• Revision as of 08:19, 2014 March 19 93.86.166.167 93-86-166-167dynamicisptelekomrs - Love the edit summary rv dick vandal - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)
• Revision as of 13:57, 2014 March 19 178.221.101.86 178-223-26-230.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs - blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (block evasion would perhaps be a better fit as for a reason)

I would like to add that in the long run some should think about what Misplaced Pages's original purpose is. If that is lost - so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we close this thread now. I don't see it as appropriate to use a false claim against one as an excuse to discuss generalities. That happens even more here it seems. (I know others will certainly disagree).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap has been told that 3RR policy has been slackened, I don't see where it's been changed. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Government of Crimea article and template

I hope this is the right place to bring this up. The article Crimea is locked (thank you). A related article is Supreme Council of Crimea which is the government of the Autonomous Republic. People are making changes to this article because they think it's the government of the new Republic of Crimea. I think that a new country needs a new article for their new government. I reverted edits yesterday and stated my position on the talk page. However, this is a hotly contested region and no one cares about the talk page. Can someone please decide how to treat the government article? I think this article needs to be reverted and locked and a discussion needs to take place about renaming the article or starting a new one. What do you think? Whatever happens to the article, the template should be treated the same way. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we are going to need separate articles for each state entity. Perhaps be WP:BOLD and move the Supreme Council article to Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and then create a separate article? RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I"m requesting an admin for assistance, because the old article needs to be reverted and locked and a new article needs to be created. Supreme Council of Crimea is the old government. State Council of Crimea is the new government. Each article needs a corresponding template. I don't know how to create a new template. This is not something I can do by myself and I don't want to be accused of an edit war. USchick (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I do know how to create those templates, but I'm reluctant to jump in when none of this seems to have been decided by anyone. However, we cannot refer to both of them as "Crimea". One has to be "Autonomous Republic of" and the other has to be "Republic of". RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid to do anything because an edit war will break out. Yesterday, a new editor was banned, which is not a good experience for a new editor. That's why an admin needs to do it and lock it down. USchick (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that blocking and banning are two different things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I made the same plea at a different thread above. Administrators need to take control of this whole thing, because it is really starting to fall apart. New random articles are being created, no one knows what anything means. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not how things work: administrators don't make content decisions and then lock things down. An administrator can, in their capacity as a regular editor, get involved in content development, including article names. But as soon as they do, they're considered involved, and no longer have the option to use the tools (issuing blocks, protecting, deleting) on that article. There's a related thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Crimea where a couple of respected admins council patience and let the normal editing processes happen. Sometimes this means things are in a fluid state for a while until things settle down (our article on Chelsea Manning is a recent example). If you have an adversion to chaos I suggest you just edit in another topic area for a while, and let things play out. – Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. USchick (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, I do not want any "locking-down", though I will mention that the article (Crimea) is fully protected (for good reason). However, as far as a "fluid state" is concerned, this means that our coverage is downright wrong, and violates NPOV. In fact, there has even been media coverage by ABC News to that effect, mentioned in an above thread. I'd merely like someone to assess consensus and help manage what is currently a very discouraging situation, and there are many other editors at Talk:Crimea who agree. However, if patience is required, I guess there is nothing we can do but mislead people in the interim for the sake of the greater good. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter what is done in this circumstance, the article will "violate NPOV". The best thing to do in truly chaotic situations such as this is as little as possible or even nothing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I must disagree with the honourable Bushranger's approach. When the only thing we can agree on is that there are major changes happening, out in the real world, I don't think inaction is a good option on-wiki. We can change slowly, deliberately; we can discuss change; we might even reach a consensus that no change is necessary on the relevant talkpages. But change has to be on the table. (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in Crimea, but with an interest in Ottoman history I can only raise an eyebrow at the notion that Crimea must belong absolutely and perpetually to one modern state). bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• While I don't really want to get involved in the inevitable mess surrounding the Crimea issue, I just want to stick my head in and remind everyone involved that there is no deadline on Misplaced Pages. - Jorgath (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

basic thoughts

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

I am sorry to be bragging on here, but if administrators prime concern its that guidelines are being followed rather than to be on the look out that Misplaced Pages meets with some of the basic encyclopedic standards i.e. that it meets the standards one could except from an encyclopedia we just might as well bin the whole project. Just look on the final straw on this one ]--Catflap08 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your specific question or concern? As it states above, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Are you having a problem with an edit war at an article, or with another editor? It looks like you were trying to link to the "Administrator misbehaving" section above, which I archived because it was getting off-topic. -- Atama頭 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe its because I referred to the noticeboard part of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents part.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard is a separate page from this one. If you'd like, I can move this to that board, or you can create a new discussion from scratch on that page if you wish. -- Atama頭 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute with User:Aoidh on Linux Mint

There is currently a dispute about the particular phrasing of the sentences "In 2012, Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu as the most viewed distribution on DistroWatch." and "The distribution has far surpassed the long-standing Ubuntu operating system as the most popular Linux operating system on Distrowatch by a factor of almost 2:1." that are currently included in the article. As it is now, thes sentence, while sourced, do not include information about what exactly defines "Linux Mint" and "Ubuntu" for the purpose of the statistics. There are many varieties of Mint (Mint Debian Edition, KDE edition, Xfce Edition, LXDE edition etc.) and of Ubuntu (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.), and some have official status, while others are separate, and this has changed over time. The current phrasing does not qualify which editions are included in the statistics and which are not, even though this is very significant: Distrowatch considers Kubuntu and Xubuntu as distinct from "Ubuntu", while it presumably (?) groups the KDE and Xfce editions of Mint under "Mint". So as it stands, the phrasing gives a false impression over the reality of the statistics on Distrowatch; it is not phrased specifically enough and in my opinion it's a rather "empty" statistic, seemingly comparing apples to oranges. The relevance of DistroWatch statistics was discussed in the past on the talk page as well.

User:‎JohnGoodName initially tried to amend the situation by removing the offending sentences altogether, but this was reverted by User:Dodi 8238 (who is not involved otherwise). I reverted this revert, because I was under the impression that a consensus had been reached not to include such statistics if they give a false impression (i.e. error of imission). This was then reverted by User:Aoidh. In hindsight, I do think that the DistroWatch statistics are noteworthy, so the information is not bad as such. JohnGoodName then re-removed the second sentence, and qualified the first with "(excluding Ubuntu variants)" to eliminate concerns over the false impressions. This was also reverted, with the claim that the sources do not make this distinction (DistroWatch clearly does, so any other sources that don't are simply misrepresenting the statistics). So I reinstated the qualification that JohnGoodName had added. This too was reverted by Aoidh. Still seeing a serious flaw in the article, but not really knowing how else to amend it, I resorted to adding {{which}} to the names of both distributions in the sentence. This was also reverted by Aoidh.

At this point a discussion was started on the talk page to try to come to some agreement. However, further attempts by me to reinstate the "which" tags were reverted again, even though the reason for putting them there was never satisfied. So not only do I still see problems with the article's content, but another editor is now trying to edit war with me over whether I am allowed to tag them as such to express my reservations. I don't think this helps the process of consensus building at all; tags should removed only after the issue has been resolved, and not just unilaterally. I don't really know how else to resolve this, discussions on the talk page don't seem to be going anywhere... CodeCat (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I isn't the place for a content dispute. If you think dispute resolution is needed even though I just started the talk page discussion, see WP:DR. However, I don't believe any administrative action is necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It arose in a content dispute but it's not a content dispute anymore. Now it's a dispute about your conduct as well, because you keep removing the tags/edit warring over it. CodeCat (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's still a content dispute. You added the tags because the unsourced edit didn't get added so you're trying to slap whatever you can on there to disrupt the sentence you don't like. If anyone else added the tags and actually explained why I wouldn't touch them because that would be a valid use for a tag, but as I said on the talk page, not getting your way isn't cause to slap tags over what you don't like with no justification and expect others to keep them there simply because you don't like the content. If you're talking about behavior, you keep marking your non-minor edits as minor after being notified that you shouldn't, why is that? I started the discussion, and would love for more input, but this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong at WP:ANI. After the unsourced sentence was removed you added the tags, and I removed them and started a discussion specifically about that per WP:BRD. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and I see no need for administrators to take action. Considering that this dispute is between just the two of you at the moment, I suggest using the process outlined at WP:3O to try to attract another editor for an outside opinion. -- Atama頭 22:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So if there is an edit war over the inclusion of a "citation needed" tag, a request for deletion, or something else along those lines, then that's a content dispute and not edit warring? I can't really believe that could be the case. Surely de-tagging an article without any consensus to do so is not a content dispute anymore, but a dispute over an editor's conduct? CodeCat (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

By that same token, ignoring WP:BRD and re-adding content after it's known that there is a disagreement is also edit-warring so...what? Are you asking to be blocked, is that what you're getting at? If not, I'm not sure why you placed this here and not at WP:DR or WP:3O (even though, as I said, that discussion is still new). That edit was reverted to the status quo and then a discussion was started about that edit to establish a consensus; if the tag belongs or the content needs to be changed let consensus decide that, don't try to circumvent the consensus-building process by running to AN/I when someone disagrees with you. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

When the edit war has stopped, and discussion has begun in its place, there is no need for admin action. Blocks are handed out to stop edit wars, not to punish people. I could technically block both of you for participating in an edit war (though it would be at best controversial to do so) but what would that accomplish? You're talking on the talk page now, if you are blocked you won't be.

If you really feel stuck (either one of you) and think this isn't going anywhere, try WP:DRN which is set up specifically for these kinds of issues. You can also ask for assistance from either WP:WikiProject Linux or WP:WikiProject Computing. A combination of those things would not be bad either (as long as you centralize discussion somewhere). -- Atama頭 23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm getting at is that tags are not content, they are about content, so there can't be a content dispute over them as such. They are intended to indicate where disputes exist. So when Aoidh removes the tags, it's as if they're unilaterally declaring that there is no dispute. That is what I came here for. CodeCat (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything that goes into an article is content. The main body of text, tags on the article, references, categories, all of it. Any discussion about what should or shouldn't be on an article when an editor reads it is a content dispute. You could even possibly have content disputes in non-article space, such as what templates should be at the top of an article discussion page. Don't get hung up on semantics, the bottom line is that this is a problem that will be resolved by consensus, not by an admin making a declaration about something, or using a tool (like a block or page protection). -- Atama頭 23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of progress with the discussion now, at least. I left a notice at WP:3O as well. Thank you for your help. CodeCat (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

i.p. disruption and WP:BLP violations at Dmitry Medvedev

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

On 16 March a dynamic i.p. made this edit to the BLP of Dmitry Medvedev, adding Category:Human rights abuses. I reverted this on the grounds of WP:BLPCAT and WP:NPOV. Subsequently the i.p. continually readded it, being reverted by other editors, among them admin Mike_Rosoft. Having tried and failed to engage with the i.p. on my talk page, I took the issue to WP:BLPN, where the users who commented agreed that such a change was unacceptable. In the meantime, Mike Rosoft correctly protected the page following further edit warring from the i.p. The i.p. subsequently complained at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Complaint about Mike semi-protecting the page and was again advised that the edit was unacceptable. Despite that, they continued to make personal attacks, insisting that people that uphold BLP policy are agents of Medvedev. Both the BLPN thread and the Jimbo Wales thread seem to have fizzled out. The i.p. simply waited for the semi-protection to end then restarted adding their own unsourced criticisms, with allusions to the Gestapo and the Cheka, organisations formed long before Medvedev was born. As this editor refuses to listen to reason, I would ask admins to take appropriate action. Valenciano (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Action needed against genre warrior 99.54.21.86

This IP has repeatedly changed genres across multiple pages without consensus. See the user's talk page and contributions for the massive number of genre changes this user has made. Thanks! FenixFeather (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There's insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. Please feel free to report at WP:AIV if the situation worsens. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll just keep an eye on them for now. – FenixFeather 20:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict on Jessica Nigri

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

User:Niemti is again making inappropriate edits, and is violating WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIV.

Niemti added this uncited birth place to the article, and in the Lead, which violates WP:V/WP:NOR, and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which states that places of birth don't go in the opening paragraph of BLPs, and which provides four examples are given in the guideline of such paragraphs that do not include this.

I cited these policies in my revert. Niemti reverted it, saying in his edit summary, "yes, it does, and WP:LEAD". He did not address the issue of sourcing at all. I reverted it yet again, and again cited WP:V/WP:NOR. I pointed out to him that WP:OPENPARAGRAPH indicates that place of birth does not go in the opening paragraph unless it's relevant to the subject's notability. I also did a search for the word "birth" on WP:LEAD, and could not find any passage supporting what Niemti was saying, so I asked him if he could point to it in the dialogue I opened on his talk page. He responded to my request by saying "Please use the magic of ctrl+F when in doubt and please don't ever ask for sourcing leads.", a condescending remark that recalls a similar refrain by him during an earlier conflict on that article, in which he told me repeatedly to "learn to read" (,).

He reverted the article a third time, which I believe violates WP:3RR, making in his edit summary the cryptic remark "what is infobox?" Niemti later indicated on his talk page that the information in question is sourced in the Infobox, which I hadn't seen earlier, but which I confirmed subsequently.

This still leaves the issue of WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and WP:LEAD, his three reverts, and his once-again incivil refusal to specify the passage in WP:LEAD that he says supports his position. Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no conflict. Nightscream just "hadn't seen earlier" again, too. GOTTA GO FAST with seeing stuff. --Niemti (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The above comment illustrates my point. He makes a incivil remark on the topic of WP:V, which I am no longer disputing, but refuses to say where it is stated in WP:LEAD that his position is supported, or conversely, why what I have pointed out about WP:OPENPARAGRAPH fails to falsify it, much less how his three edits do not violate WP:3RR, or how his comments do not violate WP:CIV. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Context note: Niemti has been reprimanded and blocked several times for incivility, edit warring, and general IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and he has been topic banned from the GA process in general with the threat to be blocked from video game articles as well; his latest block (by me) expired literally yesterday. He used to edit as HanzoHattori, who was also blocked several times, finally banned for sockpuppeting. I'm not going to get into this latest fracas, but it seems to fit his general pattern- any discussion or conflict that he gets into, Niemti is right and everyone else is both wrong and against him, no matter what they say. To be blunt, Niemti: you were unblocked for less than 12 hours and you were already back to telling people learn2read and shouting at people who disagreed with you removing an image, and you couldn't even make it a full day without getting taken to ANI over fighting with someone. To be honest, the only reason I never blocked you permanently over all the various disputes you've had is that you seem to literally spend 16+ hours a day editing wikipedia and I thought with the GA topic ban you might still be a net positive; I'm actively reconsidering that depending on how you respond to this latest bit of nonsense. --PresN 03:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool stalking bro, keep it on, love you too. The only real 'conflict' is about how https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dokka_Umarov#I_still_don.27t_think_Wikipedia_should_be_like_.27yep.2C_totally_dead.27_without_a_real_confirmation if you're really sooo intersted in it you can go and share your enlightened opinion there now. --Niemti (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Making personal attacks, especially at ANI, does not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So maybe I'll say how I'm so sick of things like and would be grateful if they all (and I don't recognise many/most of these guys at all, but apperently they know me so much somehow) just bugger off already and leave me alone, instead of contantly following and annoying me even when I'm not doing literally anything at all. And this 'context note' bogeyman making, this account was supposed to be a fresh start after coming clean, but nope, things that happened years ago will be always brought as still totally relevant every time anyway. You know, it would be pretty cool to at least, hey, how about to not feel harrassed. But yeah whatever, wikipedia drama. Don't respond to it, it was just me venting off my frustration. --Niemti (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, Niemti: what are you going to do differently? Because, in the end, the problem here is very clearly you, not everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)@Niemti: You should be happy that you even get an apology at all considering your response. I agree with you that not responding to WikiDrama is generally the wisest course of action and have been trying to minimize problems by early-closing a couple of AN/ANI reports about your attitude (because you're often part of that right-but-rude class of editors Misplaced Pages just loves to hate). Keep your head down and stick to what you're good at: editing, not talking to people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Users who have been blocked in the past are often watched for future infractions more closely; in criminology, reprobates are subject to what is called specific deterrence. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Niemti and its follow-up discussion from almost a year ago. It seems this user has been controversial for some time. It may be time for another AN discussion regarding further sanctions, something to which a premature close should not be applied. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no time to investigate, but making a revert war about this insignificant edit, whereas a reference to the birth place has been actually provided in ref (!), bringing this matter to user talk page, and then on the ANI was not a good idea, given the previous history between involved editors, including recent desysop by Arbcom.My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Roosh V

For the last 6 weeks this article has been under assault by the following two single-purpose accounts (obviously the same person), whose purpose is to defame the subject of the article in any way possible:

• Elmech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Egirl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After ignoring repeated requests to discuss their issues on the talk page, today they made their first talk page edit ... which was to delete the discussion about them and insert forged comments from another user to make them appear biased.

I request an indefinite block of both accounts. – Smyth\ 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, do you think? Guy (Help!) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Egirl90 just overwrote this section with their own comment, which I reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just gave a final warning to Egirl90. No indef blocks w/o a final warning, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued the same pattern of behavior after the warning. – Smyth\ 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to Elmech. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued edit-warring. Please block both accounts. Even a cursory examination of their edit history shows that they are the same person making the same edits. – Smyth\ 02:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has gone a talk page spamming spree it seems. Special:Contributions/Egirl90. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has been given a 48 hour block ... for harassing me!!! Bit harsh, but nevertheless the edit warring was annoying. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A user who does not get it (for multiple values of it)

I have blocked four six accounts for self-promotion and abuse of multiple accounts.

• Ayler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeffrey Hayden Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quintoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Etuning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeff Shurdut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reviewing admins: see also OTRS Ticket:2008041210002104 and Ticket:2014032010008182.

This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but also it's pretty clear that his only interest in Misplaced Pages is self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a prime candidate for an edit filter. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free, but I think it's one man with a fixed idea, I suspect blocks and the emails I've sent may help. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Koi page

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

Under the sub section on the Koi page "Health and longevity" there is a recurring hoax / myth / lie with absoulutely no reliable sources that keeps coming back.

Everytime I try to edit it out, users with the automatic programs undo my edit and try to threaten me with a ban.

Here is a copy of the irrelevant, unsourcable information.

"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old."

It has to go as it is a complete lie with no relevant source. Please fix this and allow it to be edited out once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.142.54 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@58.7.142.54: A much more productive way forward would be to take it up on the article talk page. Reverting 5 times in 10 minutes leads nowhere. Best, Sam Sailor 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have far exceeded the limts of WP:3RR, so regardless of whether you were right or wrong you are liable to be blocked for edit-warring. You have given no explanation in an edit summary, nor have you made any attempt to discuss this on the article talk page. If you remove referenced text without explanation you can expect to be reverted, and if you continue doing so you can expect to be blocked, so please stop edit-warring and explain your reasons on the article talk page so that other editors can consider your argument. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't say whether "Hanako" story was true or not, but it does appear to be well-known and probably merits some mention in the article. It appears to be widely discussed and I even found a book source, though this book also claims her age was likely an overestimation due to faulty scale readings. So while it's likely a myth it's a notable myth and merits some mention here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence??

I'll note that the Hanako "legend" appears on other wikipedia pages, ones that are involving world / biological records, and were it not for the story of Hanako, Koi would not even be mentioned on these pages at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals

"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals

"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death."

Should not be on pages unrelated to Koi, when we are talking about a one off report of a 226 year old Koi which cannot even be verified

Still cannot beleive people are buying into this, no verifyable sources, only appears as a reprinted story over and over on the internet. Like I said on another page, the supposed Hanako died in 1977, well before the advent of the internet. It seems to me like a legend that has simply stuck. There are no reports of any other Koi coming even remotely CLOSE to this age.

There are no verifyable reports of Koi living past 50 years. Why does this endure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Alleged school project - anyone else run into this?

Rock8113 (talk · contribs) says he is doing a school project where he has to insert his teacher's name in ]]Christopher Columbus]].. Could be just simple vandalism, but if it isn't there may be others doing this in other articles. I'll tell Rock8113. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Rock's been blocked. If it is a school project, the teacher is extremely irresponsible. I have to hope it's just vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I find it hard to imagine this is an actual school project. I know teachers come in good and bad and a whole lot of degrees in-between, but I can't imagine even the worst teacher just told their students "Hey, put my name in an article!" and that's it. Anyway, blocked the account as vandalism-only, and the actual Christopher Columbus is already semi-protected so chance of any actual damage is nil. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. And nice change of section heading on my talk page, Ian.thomson Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have loved a teacher like that. Or one that would have sex with her students. I never got what I wanted.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) One could well imagine a teacher including such an instruction as one item in a small "project" worksheet, with the idea being that later the teacher finds the student's edit and demonstrates how it was quickly removed, this being central to how Misplaced Pages continues to function while still allowing "everyone" to edit. (It's still irresponsible, just not educationally invalid.) In this case (if it's real), the teacher has not thought to include in their instructions that the objective of the task is to add it once, not to keep it there at all costs. That failing results in distress for the student (and/or their parents) and inconvenience for some of the rest of us. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:GrumTum disruption block needed

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

PLease look at this users page and his contribs. He is repeatedly inserting copyrighted images past warnings to stop. He is also creating usertalk pages for non existent users or placing non free images on other user's pages. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No way, I am only welcoming brand new users and people who may adopt certain user names. GrumTum (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, failing to WP:AGF and claiming WP:SOCK as a weapon.

Ryulong, has accused me of being/having a sock here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/CombatWombat42

That is the entirety of his evidence. Ryulong has in the past used the reson "sock" for deleting content created by other editors. If his evidence against me is as flimsy as his evidence against those other users he should not be allowed to claim WP:SOCK as a reason for any edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence listed is a similarity in the edit summaries because they both invoke North Korea. I don't think Ryulong made a bad faith sockpuppet report, though it may be a bad report. I don't think any action is necessary based on one report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a commonality and I was a little suspicious. If it's proven wrong then I made a mistake and I'll apologize.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my case, in general Ryulong has been using accuszations of sockpupetry to make changes to pages that would otherwise be unaccetable, and if his claims are based on evidence as flimsy as that in my case, he needs to stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In all of the other cases you are referring to (except that Macdaddyc/Youngsevon case ) the opposing party was a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are right what percentage of the time? Assuming you are wrong about me. Is wikipedia willing to accept your blatant disregard for policy 100-<that percent of the time>? Because everytime you assume someone is a sock and then are wrong, you are violating policy. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say I'm somewhere in the 90th percentile or higher. And all that is happening here is I saw a connection and I thought it was probable. And it's only "violating policy" if I suspect a banned editor is involved, I act on my suspicion, and I'm proven wrong. That hasn't happened yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, Ryulong, that you freely use the rationale of "removing content from a blocked editor" to freely delete any content you deem falls under this category, whether it is to an article, talk page or user talk page. And when I press you for evidence that the editor is a sock account, it usually isn't diffs, but based on similarities you perceive. I think you should work through SPI rather than taking on wholesale deleting of content from editors you judge to be socks. If it is as apparent as you believe, you'll be validated at SPI. Liz 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature. There's no need for you to write my name as "]" every time. Just use "Ryulong".

Second, I have not in this case that CombatWombat42 is taking offense to done anything in regards to removing content because I suspect sockpuppetry. And you've never pressed me for evidence of sockpuppetry that I can recall. If you're going off of the Wiki-star or BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords debacles, it was their overall behavior that had to be compared. And if you look at WP:SPI you can see it is heavily backlogged. It's easier to bag and tag in the short term when it's obvious (constantly posting messages to that one user's talk page, constantly adding the same copyvio content to an episode list as they did to other episode lists in the past, etc.) than it is to let them run rampant and cause problems. No page is exempt from WP:BAN. Things were not handled properly in everything you saw, but that fact still stands.

As I said, I have done no reverting concerning sockpuppetry in this CombatWombat42/A50000 investigation. I saw similar rationales and edit warring over the course of several days and I sent it for investigation. If I'm wrong in this case, then I'll apologize and nothing has to be done. This is really making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't think of it as "pinging" you...I was referring to you, as an editor, and I thought I'd use the signature you prefer. No one else has ever told me this was improper as this is how you like your name to appear. But I won't in the future since you dislike it.

I don't know the specifics of this case on AN/I but I'm referring to when you repeatedly deleted comments from my talk page that you said were being posted by a sock account even though I didn't see any hard evidence this was the case. And when I reverted your deletions (as it was my talk page) because I wanted to read their messages to me, you acted like I was providing a safe haven for blocked users, even though it hadn't been established that they were a blocked user. In fact, I don't even know how you came to view my talk page and the comments since I doubt that you have it on your Watchlist. We had quite a conversation about this incident, stretching over several pages, so I'm surprised you don't remember it. It's never happened to me before that another editor deleted someone else's content from my talk page but maybe it isn't unusual for you. Liz 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: would it have cost you anything to write "First of all, please stop pinging me by copying my signature" instead of "First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature"? You don't need anyone else to paint you as the bad guy, you do it all by yourself. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, filing an SPI in good faith is not against policy. Being mistaken about the connection is not against policy. Being wrong often isn't against policy, but it will result in a user being barred from filing at SPI, via a discussion at ANI (essentially, a topic ban). Unless someone can show that this filing was bad faith, OR that Ryulong is wrong more than 10% of the time at SPI, then this is a dead subject (I'm just making up that number, but you should be right at least 90%, or there is reason to discuss at ANI). I will remind everyone that reverting someone as a sock, or calling someone a sock, if you have not filed an SPI report on them or reported them to an admin is a blockable personal attack as a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  How is it a personal attack?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Because you are labeling someone with a title that undermines their edits and can get them blocked. It is the same if I go around reverting you with the summary "reverting edits from a vandal". You are making a claim against someone without substantiating it. Trust me, it isn't my opinion, policy is clear that calling someone by a name that is a blockable offense (vandal, sockpuppet, etc.) is absolutely a personal attack. It can also be used to simply undermine their voice in a discussion, and to create a chilling effect in a discussion. Unquestionably, a blockable issue if you haven't reported them, or you do so in bad faith. Really, you don't need to call them a sock at all if they aren't blocked for it, but if you haven't reported them first, it looks very much like bad faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown is right about idle allegations of sockpuppetry, which are just as disruptive as idle allegations of vandalism. If you know Misplaced Pages well enough to know what WP:VANDALISM is, don't claim vandalism in a content dispute simply because you are on the side of WP:TRUTH. If you know Misplaced Pages well enough to know what a sockpuppet is, don't claim sockpuppetry unless you have reason beyond idle suspicion. Just because both users quack doesn't make them the same species of duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Because if you believe someone is a sock, you do a wholesale revert of all of their edits, without any proof whatsoever. You're thinking of the percentage of times you're right but consider the situation when you are wrong and an editor finds all of their edits reverted? I'm sure that if they weren't mainly IPs, they'd appear on AN/I where you'd need to present your evidence to back up your claim. Right now, you are completely unrestrained. No doubt, given your lengthy experience on Misplaced Pages, you have a good sense for possible socks. But you can't be right all of the time and if targeted, innocent IPs won't normally come to AN/I to complain, they will just stop editing. So, yes, it can be a personal attack. Liz 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• In short, you tread lightly and don't throw around the "sock" word unless you are sure enough to file a report on them. This is also an editor retention issue, where new users don't need to be called a sockpuppet and chased off the project just because they are interested in the same subject a real sockpuppet was interested in. Connecting the dots between sockpuppets isn't as simple as "they are both interested in $x article", there is a lot of nuance to it, which is why SPI exists, and why the people that work there are specialists at it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. WP:AGF goes for IP accounts, too...at least that's where you start, not assuming an IP is a vandal or sock. Thanks, Dennis Brown. I hope your view is shared by other admins and editors. I edited for years as an IP and I know that if I had been treated as a sock, I wouldn't be editing now. I assume that goes for many other IP editors. Liz 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is more a more of policy than opinion, although it is more difficult to enforce than some policies. It all boils down to not calling someone as sock, vandal, troll or other negative name unless you are very confident that they fit the definition at Misplaced Pages for that label. Anyway, this can probably be closed and hopefully we won't have to visit this issue again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Again - These Reports Are Too Common

At least once every two weeks there is another report at this board involving User:Ryulong. Often it has to do with anime and manga. Sometimes it has to do with other areas. What I have observed in, among other things, Soviet Union, is that I agree with Ryulong on the specific content issues, but he can be extremely uncivil, and being right doesn't justify incivility and personal attacks. My advice to Ryulong, which will almost certainly be ignored, is to dial it down, and don't always have to be right, and also that there is no harm done in discussing edits with a sockpuppet. It isn't always necessary to win the edit war, even if it is winnable under the special exceptions for blocked users. At the same time, my advice to those who keep bringing Ryulong to the noticeboards is that they are just wasting electrons here. If they really want Ryulong to change his behavior or to have him blocked, go with the more structured approach of a user conduct request for comments. Ryulong: Dial the rhetoric down. Critics of Ryulong: Either dial the rhetoric down, or follow established procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or try something really stupid like.....attempting to assume good faith and engaging the editor in a civil manner to counter the perception of incivility. I am getting really tired of the gang up myself to be honest but it happens so often I wonder if I should just seek a gang myself. Nah....I can be enough of an asshole not to drag others into my ignorance...which is what I suggest of others think about as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this advice really applies here. I thought I saw suspicious activity and made a request to investigate. I've not even engaged in discussion with either parties prior to CombatWombat42's creation of this thread in response to the SPI. I don't even see myself being incivil in any of the discussions I'm currently embroiled in, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions?

Here are some common-sense suggestions I think that can help Ryulong operate in the area that he operates in (where sockpuppetry is unfortunately not uncommon) without coming into conflict. Ryulong, if you think any of this is unreasonable, feel free to say what is unreasonable and why. If someone else thinks that any of this advice is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.

• Suspecting someone of sockpuppetry, if you have a good reason to feel that way, is fine.
• Opening an SPI case for someone who you suspect is a sockpuppet is also fine, and not a big deal. If someone is mentioned in an SPI case and is cleared it won't hurt their reputation at the project. It happens to lots of people, even I was accused once of being a sockpuppet (by someone who turned out to be a sockpuppet themselves).
• Alerting the person that an SPI was opened is fine. Asking someone questions that might help you decide whether or not to open an SPI (without being overly accusatory in the process) is fine.
• What is not fine... Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without simultaneously presenting evidence of it, as this is a personal attack and clearly defined as one by our policy. Administrators sometimes make WP:DUCK blocks and tags of editors who are sockpuppets, and there is a bit of leeway given for that (to not let an excess of bureaucracy get in the way of stopping disruption) but any admin should be able to justify any block with some evidence (though maybe not too much per WP:BEANS).
• What is also not fine... Tagging an editor's page with a sockpuppet template when the editor has not been identified as a sock and/or blocked by an administrator. Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet; wait until the editor has been tagged and/or blocked by an admin before doing that. Taking any action at all with the assumption that the editor you're reverting is a sockpuppet, before an administrator has taken action against the editor for sockpuppetry.

I know that administrators don't have special "authority", but this is one of those areas where admins have traditionally been expected to enforce policy and non-administrators are discouraged. There's a reason why WP:SPI/AI is called "administrator instructions". -- Atama頭 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet"

This is where I got hung up with Ryulong in the past, when he edited my talk page to revert another editor he thought was a sock (whether he was or not, I don't know). He stated that WP:DENY took precedence over other policy. Nice to see this issue clarified. Sometimes you have to say these points out loud (so to speak) as reminders. Liz 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It has good advice (when used responsibly) but doesn't take precedence over anything. -- Atama頭 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement is policy though. And you are both censuring me for my actions regarding the Wiki-star and BuickCenturyDriver sockpuppets who were pretty blatant about who they were. All I've done in this situation is mistakenly believe that CombatWombat42 and A50000 are somehow related and he took everything way too personally, as can be seen in his WP:POINTy and retaliatory opening of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

General disruption, personal attacks, and sockpuppet accusations

Atlantictire (talk · contribs), having been recently blocked for a period of 24h by Drmies for referring to Producer as an "antisemtic crank", proceeded to further refer to him as a "bigot" not long after his block: "the people who advocate this are bigots and they should not be welcome here. If PRODUCER created that page then he is a bigot. No one should be punished for saying that" . He doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and states so openly.

His block having expired, the user currently appears to be trolling on the talkpage of the aforementioned new article. Atlantictire has posted repeated accusations of sockpuppetry against Producer and myself ; e.g: the user replied to me, addressing me as "Producer" , and then mock-"corrected" himself ("Sorry Direktor, I honestly do get you and Producer confused sometimes"). He seems to think himself "clever" in avoiding a direct statement . Similarly, having been trolling for a while about how Slavs are antisemitic (Producer and myself being Slavic), he basically admits he was trolling, but expresses his opinion that he managed to "technically" skirt policy ("I just succeeded in provoking some belly-aching about slandering an ethnic group"). The user seems prone to attempts at gaming the system, such as false apologies.

I can only speculate as to the motivation of course, but since he's actively arguing for the article's deletion on DELREV, its entirely possible this is deliberate flaming and disruption of the article's talkpage functionality. Or maybe he's just having some fun with "bigots".

For context pls note this recent thread concerning repeated accusations of sockpuppetry being used as a personal attack on the talkpage in question (and even here on ANI). The accusations are, of course, entirely baseless (see the old SPI thread , and this recent one ). -- Director (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. User Director teamed up with his buddy to trap Atlantictire in an attempt to distract him from productive editing at Jews and Communism. Director and his tag team buddy both reverted 3 times each in a tag team effort against Atlantictire. Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin. After blanking sourced information , Director refuses to discuss it on the talk page. However, he has time to waste time here. Director is being disruptive and seems to have very few interests outside this article . He should be permanently blocked form editing Jews and Communism. USchick (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Practically not a single word in the post is accurate, nor supported by diffs.

I reverted twice, producer reverted once. It was not a "tag team", we're both actively discussing and editing the same article. I reverted a massive undiscussed edit to a controversial article to discuss the problematic aspects, and started a thread about the subject - which was in turn disrupted by repeated accusations of sockpuppeteering . Hence this thread. I have more than 51,000 edits on enWikipedia, and have more interests here than I can recall at this time (in fact, I just recently finished adding a new section here, happy to share :)). -- Director (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent (massive, undiscussed) addition by IZAK. USchick (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said. Not supported by diffs. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin."

I think you meant that the article was protected. Users get blocks, pages get protected. Liz 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I only "reverted sourced information" once. As I explain on the talkpage and in the edit summary, it was a massive edit, and I wanted to discuss several problematic aspects before agreeing on a consensus version. -- Director (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And then something prevented you from discussing the content? But here you are, discussing something completely irrelevant to the content. USchick (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I started a thread on the topic, and then unfortunately Atlantictire arrived and posted sockpuppet accusations; the thread immediately devolved to his sockpuppetry PAs and my warning him to stop with the sockpuppetry PAs. I actually said so . Its offensive, esp. considering this stuff and the recent SPI. That's all I currently have to say to you, USchick. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So since then, you didn't discuss content, but you wasted people's time arguing there, and then you proceeded to come here and waste more time arguing here. I see. USchick (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Direktor I'm sorry I offended you. When I said I didn't want to report you to admins for exceeding the 3RR and discouraged others from doing it I was trying to make a show of good faith towards you. Since you are often sarcastic in your interactions with other editors, I'm frankly surprised that you would construe a bit of sarcasm from me as "personal attacks." My sarcasm towards you started after enduring days of your reverts of other editors' work. Full disclosure: I did call him a bigot upon first encountering the article and was blocked for it. But I haven't since although he has brought it up to threaten me numerous times. By making the Slavic analogy I was trying to get you to have more empathy for the Jewish editors who found the article offensive. I said numerous time Slavophobia was unacceptable, as is ant-Semitism. Considering how often he reverts and how conciliatory I've been and reluctant to make changes of any sort without discussion, this feels very disrespectful and hypocritical. It also feels like an attempt to maybe intimidate someone whose perspective he dislikes.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not much of a show of good faith if the "3RR violation" is fake, and is really just another provocation. -- Director (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right...you're complaining about personal attacks...by making personal attacks? Well...OK then. I'll note that the first diffs appear to be stale, but perhaps Drmies just didn't see them, or perhaps he just didn't see an issue there. That would be for them to say. However, much of the diffs and discussion I am reading do not show accusations of sock puppetry. What I see is that they feel the two are tag teaming and working together to work their content and exclude others (not saying this to be accurate, but what it appears the editor is saying). I think if I were having a hard time with two editors, one named "Director" and one named "Producer" I might have become suspicious as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note he refers to Producer and Myself as "definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR". I certainly hope Atlanictire isn't right in believing such comments are perfectly fine? If someone says, "the definitely not handsome rogue DIREKTOR", would you assume I am not complimenting myself? Because I said "definitely not"? (If so, you would be wrong, I am a handsome rogue ofc :))

• Further, the sentence "My sockpuppet USchick and I are very bad at coordinating in such a way that preserves any of IZAK's edits. You and PRODUCER, on the other hand, are like a couple of trapzee artists with those 'undo' and 'rollback' functions" also implies sockpuppeteering on the part of the "trapzee" artists, consideriing the context.

• Finally, I can't see how referring to myself by the username of a claimed suckpuppet does not consititute a transparent accusation of sockpuppetry.

Then again, I'm not an admin. So should I henceforward prefix any unpleasant terms with "definitely not"? :) As regards the similarity of the names, please see the context: it has come up before in the discussions, and the situation was made clear. Though I must say I dislike the implication that I should accept slander of this sort simply because my username can be interpreted as similar in theme with someone else's. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time you refuse to discuss content and throw around accusations instead. If someone feels like wasting even more time, it's all here Talk:Jews and Communism USchick (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Refuse to discuss content" ? What I see at this thread is an request by Direktor to discuss large-scale changes beforehand, only to see it be met with snide and dismissive comments by Atlantictire ("Would the definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR..."), with a side order of your nastiness in the previous thread ("Are you ganging up on my sock puppet again?"). The atmosphere in that article talk page is beyond toxic. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Edits by IZAK The toxic environment is created by Director when he lists sources and then tells me that I'm not allowed to discuss the sources he listed because he only wants to use the sources for his own benefit, and not for what the sources actually say. Like he does here Talk:Jews and Communism#Who is a Jew?. He lists a source, and then when it doesn't suit him anymore, he threatens me and wants me to stop discussing it. USchick (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Atlantictire for 72 hours. I largely agree with Tarc's concise analysis. The user is repeating his earlier behavior but with a twist of obliqueness and pushing the envelope. He seems to be here mostly to carry the banner of protecting the world from anti-semitism rather than building an encyclopedia and editing collaboratively. He makes personal value judgments and then imposes them on other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure who created the toxic environment but after reading what Tarc wrote I see exactly what they are saying. While I would not have blocked over just that, but Bbb23 is much more specific. While I think the block could be seen as insensitive...at what point do we have a warrior and not a contributing editor. I still believe this was the wrong way to complain and suggest that the filing editor may deserve a 24 hr block for personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're simply encouraging Director to continue to terrorize other editors. USchick (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Associating yourself with someone in "full troll mode" isn't helping you, USchick. Stay calm, maybe seek a 3O. (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not associating. There was consensus on the talk page not to report Director. Obviously that was a mistake. USchick (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, not assotiating. But you shouldn't take the admin-action as an endorsement for Direktor. Atlantictire's approch was not ok, and I just wanted to encourage you to keep going in a professional way. 80.132.77.41 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and thank you for your encouragement. Director spends a lot of time getting editors banned from articles that he thinks he owns. There went another one. USchick (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about five seconds. I would have used WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale, because it's quite clear that is the problem; baiting other editors is the least of it. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually did use WP:NOTHERE as one of the rationales although I didn't link to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've got one-up on me; I've never been asked/told to eat my fuck before. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a one upon just about everyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of ProducerIsASockPuppetAntiSemite (talk · contribs) may be of interest. They're blocked, of course. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You might ask a CU if those dots connect, and I wouldn't want to assume without CU. If they do, it would justify extending the block on Atlantictire to an indef. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be all too easy to set up Atlantictire this way. Hello CUs, anyone want to do a check? Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

USChick, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. This backpattery for fighting a "battle" that's "noble" is highly inappropriate. Especially after that particular user tells admins to: "Eat my fuck. You enable Anti-Semites." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And the other half of the tag team shows up. Please present your Gestapo badge before you attempt to tell me with whom I am allowed to joke around on their own personal talk page. Did you notice where I started a new discussion called "Life Lessons?" Do you think that's relevant? Would you like to go back into the edit history to see how many editors the tag team Producer/Director have successfully blocked? USchick (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's completely uncalled for. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part? The review of your and Director's edit history? Let the admins decide. USchick (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say USchick's heading very quickly for a block of their own ... extremely quickly indeed DP 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed. A confrontational attitude, especially from a person that states that "fighting battles is a very noble cause" at a project based on collaboration and consensus is not going to last long. USchick, you desperately need a new tack in the way you approach Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 18:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment is about life in general, not Misplaced Pages. There is a life lesson for Atlantictire here that's much bigger than Misplaced Pages. USchick (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Life itself is much bigger than Misplaced Pages (which is why I'm prone to occasional Wikibreaks) but if life and Misplaced Pages conflict, or if the approach you take to life (and use at the project) is antithetical to Misplaced Pages, then you'll have a problem here. -- Atama頭 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly, and that's why he's blocked. USchick (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Atlantictire has (rather ironically) created a sockpuppet, 2602:30a:2c0d:c9a0:9577:a271:88ee:bab1 (talk · contribs), to evade his block and continue with the personal attacks . Pls see the use of carets (^) by Atlantictire throughout the talkpage (e.g. ) and their appearance in the sock post. -- Director (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, a Checkuser needs to take a look. This is exactly the type of situation that requires those tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that eliminates the possibility of this being a false flag that is intended to make the editor appear even more guilty. -- Atama頭 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh its him alright, I'll post an SPI. -- Director (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I occasionally confuse Direktor with Producer. Also, Atlantictire was righteously blocked, twice in a row, and had I seen those edits I would have made the same block for disruption, personal attacks, passive-aggressive commentary, baiting, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Insisting to include large direct quotes

Copied by me from the section of the same name at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk)

In here user:Johnleeds1 is insisting on copying a huge part of the book to the article despite my reminder. Also, I am not clear why he is resisting the removal of primary sources in a historical article. I am writing here to avoid an edit war. Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the sources, but such a large quote of nonfree copyrighted material is going far beyond fair use. I quote Folsom v. Marsh, upon which fair use is based:

If he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

John's edits have the effect of adopting the text as part of what we're saying, rather than using Kennedy's words so that we can comment on what Kennedy says. I've removed the text in question and will be giving John a stern warning. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

At almost 700 words, it is clearly copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And I see Nyttend warned him about it, thanks. I also just noticed that I warned him in the past about copying within Misplaced Pages without attribution. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The same long quote has been pasted on the article's talkpage. It's not allowed there either, surely? The non-free content criteria policy concentrates on articles, but it does say "Articles and other Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" etc. My italics. So I've removed it from talk as well. Some copyright otaku had better please revert me if that wasn't right. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

You were right to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan

• Typhoon Haiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help needed--the article has been vandalized and rewritten, presumably with a short copyright violation. The site won't allow me to revert to the previous version, even with a manual cut and paste, because it contains a link to a disallowed archive. Assistance in restoring a last good version would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it without the archive links - this has the unfortunate side effect that about 15 of the refs are now dead links. Alternative archives for these sources need to be added. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What a mess, but at least the substance is restored. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now we need a revdel, to hide to copyvio. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this issue has been solved, shall we leave it be? All Refs seem to be restored, and the activity has cooled down. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Happy Attack Dog, I urge you to read WP:COLOR. I can't read a single letter in that signature of yours. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sushi article

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

The article for sushi appears to have been vandalized. The entire page has been reduced to one line: "Chinese food is yummy. I like honey chicken and mexican guacamole. CHineseseseses"

https://en.wikipedia.org/Sushi

I don't frequently encounter vandalism (this is my first time reporting it) so I'm not sure how to track who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltarios (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Voltarios. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and I have now blocked the vandal indefinitely, since it was a vandalism-only account. If you'd like to see what has happened on an article and who did what to it, you can click on its "history" tab at the top. (P.S. Chinese food is yummy, but so is sushi. :-)) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

Voltario, you were right to bring this matter to this board. Everyone who suggests combining honey with chicken ought to be blocked, and bringing in mustard for a disgusting menage a trois only makes it worse. I'm going to have to have a word with their parents. Thank you, and thank you Bishonen for the judicious block. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Washington Diamonds legal threat

The following was left on the page for Washington Diamonds by the user Washdia

"You have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the use of the name "Washington Diamond"

It has come to our attention that this page describing a company producing synthetic diamonds is using our registered trademark "Washington Diamond" (Registration #4399260 -- See link: http://www.trademarkia.com/washington-diamond-85824716.html) without permission. This is infringing on our intellectual property and causing confusion with consumers by using a similar sounding name promoting a similar product online.

The USPTO has given the WASHINGTON DIAMOND trademark serial number of 85824716. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED. The correspondent listed for WASHINGTON DIAMOND is ANDREA H. EVANS, ESQ. of THE LAW FIRM OF ANDREA HENCE EVANS, LLC, 14625 BALTIMORE AVE # 853, LAUREL, MD 20707-4902 ."

The text has been removed from the page and the user notified of this message. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's talking about the words "Washington Diamonds", his complaints are groundless as that's the name of the company. If he's talking about the illustration, it's worthpointing out that the uploaded image also appears on this page, but it's not clear who stole from whom. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be with the name "Washington Diamonds" - in which case they should be taking their concerns to the company using that name, not us - we're simply reflecting what is stated in third-party sources. If a lawsuit results and it gains press coverage, we can update the article accordingly. As to the image, I believe it actually originates from washingtondiamondscorp.com/about-us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears from the talk page this issue has arisen before. Fraggle81 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The comment on the talk page from Oct 2013 is by the same user that tagged the article today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the fact that the user issuing the legal threat is so damn wrong about the laws at issue here. How can a Misplaced Pages page about the company itself (in any way, shape or form) be construed as "causing confusion with consumers" when Misplaced Pages clearly doesn't intend to get into the same business? Sounds to me like a stupid troll or a lawyer who got his bar licence from a box of Wheaties. —Jeremy v^_^v 01:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can only get your license from a box of Wheaties in California.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often this comes up, especially in OTRS. LFaraone 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew this sounded familiar. §FreeRangeFrog 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you seem to be saying that you believe the person posting the legal threat is representing the company which is the subject of the article - am I reading your post correctly?

From what I can see, that's not the case. Based on the address in the trademark, they appear to be representing washingtondiamond.com ... while the article is about a different company whose webpage is at washingtondiamondscorp.com. But, that's still an issue for them to address with the other company. For now, the reliable sources support our current article naming, and if a lawsuit comes from their complaint and itself becomes notable, we would document that as well as any name changes resulting from it. But, that's an issue for the two companies to resolve while we just document coverage from reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 189.159.231.124

I don't know if it's maliciousness or ignorance that causes whomever is behind IP 189.159.231.124 to continuously manipulate Ilion Animation Studios and United Plankton Pictures negatively, because they've not yet responded verbally. There could be a language issue (IP geolocates to Mexico) but the user continues to remove, with no explanation or rationale, the valid "format=dmy" template parameter here. (The template instructions are at Template:Dts.) User has continuously ignored comments and warnings to stop across multiple IPs. User also continues to format article sections per their whim, rather than per MOS, consensus, or logic, often adding useless and empty sections like here where "Specials" is added for no reason. In the above referenced edit here, user contributes an alleged future movie event without a reference, which contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. User has also edited from 189.159.224.77, 189.237.186.87, 189.159.251.234, etc. So it's a persistent bother that has yet to be remedied through discussion. I submitted this IP to AIV before, but predictably the edits were not deemed vandalism enough so the IP returned again to restore their unhelpful POV. Other examples from different IPs: "Television TV shows" and "Filmography" to "Studios", and again, and again, and again with bad formatting and the addition of "prenset". And they appear to be all over this article where Carniolus is working hard to maintain order. Requesting admin intervention and if possible, some consideration for a range block, as they do hop around, and I also think it prudent to apply some form of protection from IPs on Ilion Animation Studios, United Plankton Pictures, Dr. D Studios and Kennedy Miller Mitchell. Maybe for 30 days or so? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:NE2 insulting a user using WP:AWB

Please see the edit summaries , , and several others from his AWB run. AWB is not a tool to insult other editors in edit summaries. While he claims that he is done with his task, I do not think that he should retain access to AWB if this is how he will be using it. --Rschen7754 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 ignored my request to fix his error. If anyone should lose access to automated tools, it's him, but I'm not going to ask for that. --NE2 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether a user listens or does not, does not give you the right to 'name and shame' people. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to lose AWB access here. Sure the edit summary was slightly inflammatory, but NE2 says they are done with the run. Barring some sort of pattern of abuse being presented, I don't see a need for further action. NE2, in the future, there is really no reason to call out another editor in your summary. -- John Reaves 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw these edit summaries in my watchlist this morning. Weather it's inflammatory or not, it's in poor taste. Petty was the word that first came to my mind. Dave (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would echo John Reaves here. Unless this is part of some long term thing, I would say just NE2 should stop adding other editor's names in the summary and call it done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering past interactions NE2 has had with Imzadi1979, I think that this was more than just bad judgment ( and for example). And considering that NE2 barely missed being admonished in 2008 for similar behavior (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#NE2 admonished, I don't think this is a one-off incident. With that being said, if the decision here is to monitor things more closely, I am fine with that as well. --Rschen7754 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • For a very active editor, his block log and such isn't that bad, so I'm guessing he is smart enough to get the message here and just stop the snippy summaries. If it is a habit, he can consider himself on notice to stop it now. We will see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I added an expanded note on his talk page, so there would be no misunderstanding over the idea that the summaries are not acceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move screwup

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

Bluebearknuckle (talk · contribs) moved the page Roger Lebel to D. Nguyen. Apparently, recognizing the mistake, but unsure how to fix it, he recreated the Roger Lebel article. Unfortunately, it now looks like he was the only contributor to Roger Lebel, while the D. Nguyen article (no redirected to Dèmetrice Jackson), falsely appears to have a long history of many different editors.

I think it's going to take an admin to straighten this out. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All cleaned up. -- John Reaves 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

disruption, BLP violations, POV and soapboxing by User:Need1521 at Dmitry Medvedev

I raised this issue earlier at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#i.p._disruption_and_WP:BLP_violations_at_Dmitry_Medvedev. On 2 March User:Need1521 made this pointy edit basically saying that because Medvedev *didn't* do something, they were responsible for glorifying crimes created during the Stalinist era and earlier, even though Medvedev wasn't even born until 1965. When that was reverted, they used an ip to reinsert it. Then, on 16 March, they added the clearly inappropriate Category:Human rights abuses. When editors removed this, they used several ips to readd it. They ignored advice of other editors at Misplaced Pages:Blpn#Dmitry_Medvedev that the material was unacceptable, insisting that anyone upholding WP:BLP was simply an employee of Medvedev. After unsuccessfully reverting the ips addition User:Mike_Rosoft protected the page for a couple of days. The ip complained about this at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_159#Complaint, where they were again told that their soapboxing was unacceptable. They continued arguing on regardless, their last comment there basically arguing that because Russia had recently blacklisted several US officials, "patriots of Misplaced Pages (from USA)" should take revenge against Russia by supporting their soapboxing on the article. They also simply waited out the 2 days and resumed readding the material, being again reverted by User:Materialscientist, who was forced to semi-protect the page again. Despite that, they've reverted to their Need1521 account to edit war to get their POV back in. Valenciano (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hair-raising. One might add extremely poor English (Google Translate?). I've indeffed Need1521, for all the good it may do, considering their access to such a variety of IPs. I suppose we may have to keep the article semiprotected for a good long time. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

That does seem to resolve the issue for now, though sadly I have a hunch that it may not be the last we hear from that person. They refuse to get the point, see this all as a big conspiracy against them and while incompetent at following our rules or advice, are competent enough at finding ways round our rules, for example, they made exactly ten edits to their user page a few days ago, making them autoconfirmed. On the plus side, a couple of admins now have their eyes on the article, so that should nip any further disruption in the bud. Valenciano (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Politician removing negative facts from their own Misplaced Pages article

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

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a large number of revisions performed by Lukeming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in its history. In the last week the user has removed a section referencing a notable controversy surrounding the subject of the article. The latest edit he made shows the specific section he tends to remove.

Earlier today, this politician announced their intention to run in the European elections. Following the recent removal of the unflattering information, they made a request to have the page protected claiming that there was a large amount of IP vandalism. However, as can be seen by the edit history, the edits are predominantly established users cleaning up the conflict of interest issues caused by Lukeming's removal of unflattering information.

It is likely that "LukeMing" is either the subject of this page or a dedicated fan of theirs working to ensure that the page is positive for his upcoming election. In addition, it appears they attempted to abuse the Misplaced Pages page protection system for personal gain. I would request that "LukeMing" and any non-established users be prohibited of making changes to this page until after the election on 25th of may of this year to ensure the content of the article remains neutral.

Constant personal attacks by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 keeps attacking me and accusing me of using Misplaced Pages to promote the academic Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This has been going on since last summer, and I just want it to stop. For the record, I am a member of SOHP, but I have no financial or family/friend interest in this society. It is a typical academic society with hundreds of members. I am not an officer or have any particular personal stake in it. The occupational health psychology article they keep accusing me of using as promotion for SOHP has a mention of SOHP in one place (history of the field), and I am not the one who wrote it. I just want them to stop accusing me every time I disagree on some content issue. They have done it on the occupational health psychology talk page and other place. They keep inserting personal opinion, unreferenced statement, and mis-citing sources into the article, e.g.,, and when other editors point it out, they are attacked. They have been blocked three times for bad behavior, the last time in February for personal attacks. Here's some examples of the accusations on the OHP talk page and other places.

One quote: “Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP').

After Atama just cautioned me to be careful in talking about SOHP in articles, they kept on with the attacks. “Iss246’s & now psyc12’s ridiculously strong and blatant promotion and Misplaced Pages:Advocacy (since 2008) is definitely continuing to create disruption to editing. Note when Atama asked for examples of promotion, they provided none.

On Jytdog’s talk page where I have never posted:

And today--see end of this section and Bilby's independent reaction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is right here, at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard under header Occupational Health Psychology that you are actually talking about above, psyc12. I had a right to report you there. That is the appropriate forum for COI reports. However can you please provide any evidence, at all, through diffs psyc12, where I have personally attacked you?? Not once, not any! I have made sure I have remained civil, courteous and respectful for over 75 days with both you and iss246. I feel this report here is vexatious and frivolous, without any cause, or based on any objective evidence.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 and iss246 have admitted themselves as friends and colleagues outside of Misplaced Pages; psyc12 joining Misplaced Pages on iss246’s direct invitation. They are also active members and advocates for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the ‘goals’ of that professional society. They edit in unison, ‘appearing’ at the same time, on the same articles, presenting the same POV, and often even answering questions that were directed to the other editor.

See Psyc12 seems to be as involved in SOHP & EAOHP as their colleague, here discussing SOHP Psyc12 could be the chair of the 'OHP' committee for all I know! In fact, these COI issues with iss246 & now psyc12 and the society of 'OHP' have been ongoing since 2008 between many psychology editors. See here. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. It is also seen here, in these series of diffs, from 2008, between iss246 and another experienced editor. These diffs show difficulties iss246 is presenting over the same topic of ‘OHP’ and including ‘external links’ to their society for ‘OHP’ in the OHP article. See: The point is, I have tried to add edits, or sources to bring some NPOV but have been prevented from doing so by both psyc12 & iss246. See this diff showing 3 consecutive reverts made by psyc12 within minutes of each other and me trying to find a civil resolution. On Talk:Occupational health psychology It is filled to the brim with at least 20 PDF links back to their SOHP newsletters as reliable sources. Also adding external links back to their SOHP society, and then other editors being told (in no uncertain terms) by iss246 & psyc12 to leave the external links alone! And here psyc12 saying there is only room in the article for links to their 'OHP’ societies!? I have tried not to bring up the COI assessment made by Atama and was not aware that COI could not be mentioned again? In fact, as soon as I dared to remind these editors of the COI issues, I am immediately reported here by psyc12!? I even said to Bilby before psyc12 decided to post here, okay, well I won't mention Atama's COI assessment again. However this article remains very biased and I feel like no other editor can possibly add any reliably sourced, neutral edits to the article, without psyc12 & iss246 quickly blanking them in tandem, under the guise that the edits were "not appropriate" (or some other similar excuse), and without providing any diffs, or Misplaced Pages policy explaining on what basis they are deleting my edits? see Talk:Occupational health psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If any editor believes there is 'any' uncivil, or 'any' disrespectful editing or any personal attacks I have made, over the past 65 days please post the evidence right here. I stand by my objective edit history over the past few months, and don't appreciate 'frivolous blanking' of my good faith edits or baseless claims of personal attack, here by psyc12. As I've said, I won't bring up Atama's assessment of COI again, and did not realise that I could not even mention, that this assessment had actually been established at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard when psyc12 & iss246 have completely ignored that assessment and this article Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide I found quite useful in dealing with COI issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems at The Zeitgeist Movement

User:Flowersforparis, a WP:SPA with a history of promotional editing at The Zeitgeist Movement and related articles, has chosen to edit-war over inclusion of material concerning a book published by TZM, and an event hosted by the Movement, sourced solely to a press release on prnewswire.com I have repeatedly tried to explain the issue - see edit summaries on history , the thread on the article talk page , and my posting on Flowersforparis's talk page. . None of which seems to have made the slightest difference, as Flowersforparis has responded with a nonsensical (and insulting) claim that "It isn't a Press release. It is a book/text. Where is the 'source' for the ' TZM DVDs', moron?" I note that Flowersforparis has already been warned for incivility regarding TZM-related matters, and has already been blocked once (for two weeks) for sockpuppetry, and frankly, I think that we would do well to show this 'contributor' the door, on the grounds of WP:COMPETENCE (how many times does one need to point out that citing a press release is citing a press release?), and as clearly not here for any reason but to promote TZM, with no regard whatsoever for Misplaced Pages policies. While I doubt that this will be the last pro-TZM single-purpose account we see, we might at least get one with a bit more of a clue and a little more manners next time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As an editor that watches that page I would agree with Andy T.G. that this editor is not going to be anything other than what they have been, a single purpose problematic type, for what ever his tenure is here, so maybe better to make that tenure 'over'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review

I have blocked AkiraKinomoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Fairspit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis of behavioural evidence: first edits clearly indicate someone who is not a new user, area of interest is identical (especially the obsession with Cumberbatch) , the account has no edits prior to the blocking of the last lot of socks, and one of the user's early actions is to request unprotection of a title with which Fairyspit is also obsessed. As usual with this kind of thing, the evidence is purely circumstantial and I invite review. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards