Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 10 April 2015

• 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
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Ongoing problem with anonymous editor

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

I've hesitated a few times about posting a request for help here, but I feel the editing/talk patterns of an anonymous editor on several of the articles pertaining to particle physics requires some attention. I'll cite 3 pages as examples: Bohr magneton, Neutron, and what prompts this request Neutron magnetic moment The trouble is documented, IMO, on the talk pages to these articles. The editor works under several anonymous IP addresses and it surely seems to me exploits this ambiguity (sock puppetry). On the magnetic moment page, IP nos 193.231.X.X, 5.15.X.X have been used. The talk page for neutron has other IP numbers; to good approximation all those anonymous IPs are one person, seems to me. On the neutron talk page ("Dimensional inconsistency") the editor denies it is one editor, which seems strikingly false. As you can see from the dialog there, the editor attempted a "word dump" of nonsensical gibberish in an attempt to keep some weasel words in a section from being removed. This is one reason why I post here - there seems little sense in responding/talking to the editor; that's like adding gas to the fire. The editor regularly pushes peculiar POVs, in particular he wants to challenge the (well accepted) quark model for hadrons. I cite the Bohr magneton article because it sure seems to me the editor attempted to rename this physical constant to the Bohr-Procopiu magneton, ignoring the Talk discussion from several editors about it. I recently changed back the article to greatly downplay this renaming effort. These IP addresses are all from Romania. The editor has been around WP for quite some time, not a novice, yet still seems to perceive this encyclopedia as a general forum for establishing or challenging scientific facts. On the Talk:James_Chadwick page this editor (c.f., neutron talk page for same 79.119.X.X IP) suggested that Chadwick was not the discoverer of the neutron; another theme of the editor, out-of-the-way people needing to be properly credited for discoveries long attributed to better-known people. The editor seems to edit in good faith, but he is an aggressive, if not abusive, editor. The editor refuses to open a proper account, though he has been requested to do so. (And I see the editor has just now reverted me again to include a bibliography entry in Romanian on the Neutron magnetic moment page.) Help? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for this inflammatory or tendentious(?) noticeboard involvement. Bdushaw, familiarize yourself with WP:NONENG before stating that I reverted you again on using foreign languages (Romanian and Russian) sources that are to be cited.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the issue on the Bohr-Procopiu magneton (which I see is old stuff) issue mentioned by Bdushaw, who by the way, seems to have a bias against non-English scientists, including the biased comments against Dmitri Ivanenko.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another remark is that user Bdushaw seems to have something against IP's from Romania.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see another imputation to me: the suggestion that Chadwick was not the discoverer of neutron, which seems to be a twisting of aspects presented on that talk page which is attested in other languages Wikipedias on Chadwick.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I introduced this complaint, there has been a blossoming fight with the usual endless gibberish-logic on the Talk:Neutron_magnetic_moment page. All over a silly book in Romanian the editor wants to put on the Neutron_magnetic_moment page, against all rhyme or reason. It is this endless argument, time and time again, that is the reason for the post here. This behavior is not acceptable - it drives editors away (including me). When one hesitates about editing out of fear it might offend this anonymous editor, something is amiss. See also the User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones page; Jones has recently valiantly tried to contribute, but has encountered the usual (abusive, IMO) nonsense. IMO the anonymous editor certainly exploits the multiple, constantly changing IPs to abuse the Misplaced Pages process; there are levels and levels of duplicity, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The lines above are Bdushaw's wishfull thinking. Bdushaw, if you don't like content suggestions proposed by the IPs, this is not a reason to obstruct the improvement of content by resisting the requests for adding details that helps to conceptual clarification.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Bdushaw about the IP editor: a clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR. The various IPs are obviously all the same person (they all resolve to the same provider, and the similarities of style are crystal clear). Whether he's hopping deliberately or not is uncleatr to me, but he certainly seems to enjoy the ambiguity it provides. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

These are ridiculous aspects. Focus on improving the content, not on who is making the suggestions(the IPs whether the same or different person should not be discriminated). I think it is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the content suggestions.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So, any action on this...? Seems concerting... --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the implicated IP(s) is insensitive to the opinions and requests of others, is disruptive and writes much that is nonspecific and disparaging. This has a disruptive effect on the efforts of well-intentioned editors. This reaction on my talk page to a routine notification is completely out of place. Administrative sanction may be appropriate. —Quondum 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was beginning to think this issue was winding down, and perhaps that was the end of it...but now we have this latest entry to the Neutron magnetic moment talk page: diff. This seems to me a laughable sock puppet. 193.231.X.X has been a contributor to the Neutron talk pages. I don't think I know enough about the mechanics of Misplaced Pages to be able to suggest a remedy. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that this editor (who may or may not be the same person) will learn more of the interaction and style on WP, and settle down. Notice this edit series from the same a similar IP address as your diff where there is an apparent lack of understanding of the use of ref tags for references; this may be related to the insertion of links that are not directly used as references. —Quondum 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several points of similarity between 193.231.X.X and 5.15.X.X posts, but it is not likely important at this point. The editor may settle down or wise up, true, but I've seen little sign of contrition, alas. It occurred to me that I posted here partly because the editor has no Talk page (I was at a loss as to where to post the notification for this entry); but he has certainly been happy to take advantage of regular editor's Talk pages. The discussion above seems inappropriate on any particular article's Talk page. Perhaps it might be useful for Misplaced Pages to create a system for Talk pages for anonymous editors? Would that just encourage them to not register for a proper account? The problem does not seem to be at the level where semi-protection of various articles is required. Partly the issue is that I feel consciencious about talking/resolving issues whereas that seems hopeless, or even counterproductive, with this editor. But quietly revert warring doesn't seem like quite the answer either... (Bdushaw, on travel with forgotten Misplaced Pages password) 70.162.49.170 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Bdushaw you were correct to bring this here but also could have brought it to WP:RFPP. If the disruption continues after protection expires I'll happily keep re-applying until it stops. Zad68 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Massive multi-party disruption at Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean-related ethnic articles

Fellow admins: the situation of multi-party POV warring on Assyrian-related articles is out of control. Background info: this is about a group of minority populations in Syria and Iraq, whose diaspora communities are riven by deep-seated infighting between rival ethno-religious factions, regarding their preferred appellations and the preferred ancient peoples ("Assyrian", "Aramean", "Chaldean") upon whose alleged inheritance they build their claims of "identity". There have been constant petty naming wars ever since the beginnings of Misplaced Pages. It has always been the case that virtually every user who ever took an interest in editing the topic was a member of one of the rival factions and here to pursue their pet agenda; editing from all sides of this mess has been equally bad. In recent months the disruption has reached new heights. There have been at least three massive sockfarms fighting each other for several months. I just blocked half a dozen accounts the other day; new accounts and IPs sprang up immediately. Just yesterday I took great pains in explaining to all involved that a certain contentious quotation (about which they had all been edit-warring) was indeed demonstrably a fake (as one of the factions had been claiming) ; today I find the quote re-inserted into yet another article yet again by yet another new IP .

I need more eyes on all the articles involved, especially:

• Assyrian people
• Assyrian continuity
• Assyrian
• Terms for Syriac Christians
• Name of Syria
• Arameans
• Michael the Syrian

... but there are many others into which this mess has spilled over, basically any page related to this group, their name or their various ancient homelands.

I don't know what to do. There are no "good" versions to revert to, because whenever you remove one side's tendentious crap, you are only reinstating the equally tendentious crap of the others. Normally, I would ask for discretionary sanctions, but those will be of little use: DS arrangements are for protecting potentially constructive editors and giving them a safe space to work in by shutting the disruptive elements out – but here we have nothing but disruptive elements.

Unless others have better ideas how to deal with this, I'm thinking of applying the radical "Liancourt Rocks"-type strategy: stub all the affected articles down to a skeleton version or delete them outright, fully protect the lot of them for half a year, and allow gradual rebuilding only through edit requests to be vetted by uninvolved competent editors on the talkpage.

Ideas? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the Liancourt Rocks page blank my screen???? Just curious. It doesn't now. Odd! _Fortuna 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like a good strategy for certain intractable problem pages. I have a question. Could you give us a brief overview of how well the strategy worked on the Liancourt Rocks page? Has this strategy been used anywhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's Liancourt Rocks option and full protection sounds like a good idea, we'll just have to monitor the onslaught of edit requests but, at least the pages will begin to grow objectively. Also some kind of guideline for blocking repeated frivolous edit requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks-related articles have been on my watchlist for years and aside from brief flareups on talk pages, everything is quiet and stable now. --NeilN 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is the right solution. Such disputes mirror off-Wiki ethnic and religious controversies, and will not be resolved until the off-wiki issues are as well. If ever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a mess. I've tried to follow some of the discussions and it seems like outside editors can't participate without them being falsely identified as being affiliated with one ethnic side or the other. It's like the concept of neutral editors is not accepted by the primary parties. And there is also talk about Misplaced Pages cabals/cliques influencing the articles. It all discourages uninvolved editors from jumping in and editing. Some of the sources are also tainted by bias. This area needs editors knowledgeable about the Middle East field who have thick skins and can avoid being provoked into disputes. Liz 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As Lt. Ripley once said: Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Fully support the Liancourt option here. It will bring some sanity to a very problematic area. §FreeRangeFrog 23:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how this totally unrelated dispute resembles, in a sense, the protracted dispute that is discussed in the "handling COI" discussion above. Different subject, similar issues. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I was thinking the very same thing when first reading the above COI discussion. Just a note, for editors adding Fut.Perf. list to thier watch, please add Mosul. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not belittling the powerful views held on all sides in all these kinds of disputes. In fact, it's just because of the sincerity of such views that such disputes are so intractable.Coretheapple (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a obvious reason that the pages in this topic area need protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for this feedback so far. Based on this apparent consensus, I have begun with the protection and partially stubbing back (or reverting to old versions) of a few articles (starting with Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden, which had been left with a completely nonsensical lead sentence ever since an edit-war in 2010, without any of the warriors ever noticing; I also deleted a long-standing POV fork of the same article at Assyrians in Sweden and removed some apparent source abuse at Name of Syria). Please note that in making these content edits and then imposing protection, I am WP:IAR'ing on our normal admin "involvement" procedures; I'm putting it on the record here that I believe this to be justified on the basis of the consensus here. If anybody has procedural objections, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a general observation: as more contributors to Misplaced Pages come from new parts of the world, we will see more of this deep-seated infighting over names & facts. (A mild example of this is the chronic but low-level edit-warring over numbers of Christians & Muslims in Ethiopia: historically Ethiopian Christians have been in the majority, but due to population trends & the growth of Protestant Christianity there, Muslims are now the most numerous group -- per the Ethiopian government's own census returns. But this does not stop individuals in or from Ethiopia from "correcting" the figures. So far it's just been a matter of reverting & moving on, but I expect one day this will become a Yet Another Flashpoint.) About the only solution I have is to get ahead of these problems -- if you know of them, which is the trick -- & provide reliable citations for the preferred name/factual assertion. Otherwise Liancourt Rock-style protections will become more common. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Years ago, before Misplaced Pages, I was moderator at a forum in which a subforum dealt with the Assyrian/Syrian issue. My experience was exactly that of Fut.Perf.: endless infighting, high on insults and low on substance, and both sides convinced that nobody could be neutral; moderating a poor post by somebody from one side was immediately taken as a sign of belonging to "the enemy". That experience makes it easy to understand that this situation has no good solution. Few neutral users willingly walk into this mine-field, and those who edited all have deeply held beliefs, many are probably on Misplaced Pages just for this purpose. In other words, the Liancourt Rock option is likely to be the least bas solution here.Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

user:Wikiwikiman777 abusing AFC process

Based on an examination of contribs, I am convinced that Wikiwikiman777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been for some time following a pattern of (a) creating a draft using an IP or sock and then submitting it to AFC; (b) approving the draft himself and then moving it to mainspace. The articles in question are Unitary Theories of Memory, Elaborative Encoding, Alternative Explanations of the "Grandmother" Cell, and several more. Note the MOSCAP errors in all the titles; there are several other telltales, such as the IPs all coming from Michigan (the ones I looked up, anyway). This editor has been working this way since November 2013. The articles are actually not bad as far as I can tell -- I haven't examined them very closely though. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the old days when AfC was still in Misplaced Pages talk: space, the main reason we didn't want articles being moved to mainspace at random is because they wouldn't be picked up at NPP, so they would bypass the standard checks (A7 is an obvious one, but G12 is even more important, and reasonably common on AfC drafts). Today, with the Draft: space, I think moving from draft to mainspace is not really much different than assembling a userspace draft, then moving it to mainspace when it's ready. It's not using the Officially Authorized AfC Tools (TM), but it's not actually disruptive. I don't enough about the topic so I can't comment on whether Child Lying is a valid encyclopedic topic or original research masquerading as one, but it certainly looks to pass the speedy criteria. Ritchie333 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of socks is clearly deceptive, and anything deceptive is disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It only is if you value sockpuppetry above writing an encyclopedia, in my view. He might have just been accidentally editing while logged out.Ritchie333 16:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comments here are not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the evidence of socking and abuse? Looking at the article creators, there's Ltucogpsych, an IP that geolocates to Michigan and has also edited Lawrence Technological University, and an IP that directly goes to LTU. The articles themselves have student editing stamped all over them. This just looks like people doing their homework. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Opabinia regalis has solved this mystery. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• The only thing I have to say is that the steps being followed here are entirely pointless as described by the OP. AFC is an option process. Any autoconfirmed editor is allowed to create an article in the mainspace at any time. Its not something we advertise to new users, for some interesting social-psychological reasons I won't get into here, but fundamentally there are no rules which require ANY new article to go through ANY approval process at ANY time. Anyone is allowed to create an article and just put it in the main article space. There's no reason to go through hoops to "pretend" to be two editors to "approve" one's own article through AFC. Just frigging create the article. Of course, it may also be summarily deleted if it doesn't meet proper standards (which is also true of AFC-created articles. No article is immune). If the disruption described by the OP is actually going on, it is doubly stupid: besides being the sort of WP:GAME violation to lead to a ban, it is an entirely worthless way to get an article in the main space. Just create it there. --Jayron32 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Opabinia's theory is that an instructor (in cognitive psychology, it would appear) has gotten his or her students to write articles in draft space, and then the instructor is checking them over before moving them to mainspace. That sounds like a good process to me if the instructor is more familiar with Misplaced Pages than the students are. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In that case, I agree. That's a quality idea, and also isn't a problem. --Jayron32 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is the theory. Looking at the articles, one might question the quality of the quality control. But the process of creation looks like a no harm, no foul situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• A long and involved series of edits at Lock Ness Monster lead to this result. While not being an expert in the subject I don't see intentional destruction here. Edits of his I saw in other places are primarily deletions. GregKaye 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Let's not kid ourselves. This is wrong. If this user we're talking about here, used IPs to submit articles that he himself approved, it's indeed an abuse of the process. Now, even if they are encyclopaedic, the next question would be, why's he doing it? He's not self-satisfied with the articles he wrote, it's as easy as that. Bypassing a formal process is simply unfair. There's a reason we have AfC. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the idea here is that the instructor didn't write the articles, so submitting them directly from his/hr own account would have been taking credit for the work of others. The similarities between the articles would be because the instructor assigned the topics, specified the footnote style, etc. See the comments above. As far as AFC being a respectable process, despite the good intentions and hard work of its participants, it has (like so much of Misplaced Pages) grown into a bullshit bureaucracy, so bypassing its formal aspects to the extent possible is a good thing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 At this point you have two options: put the articles you feel are unacceptable up for AfD and get a consensus as to what to do with them, the second is open either a WP:SPI or thread at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard to see what people might suggest on behalf of this class. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Since all signs so far point to this being a class project, I suggest posting to the Education Noticeboard. Epic Genius (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unitary theories of memory appears to be a decent article, so the end result of this not-completely-correct process seems worthwhile. Whoever did the work seems to understand our conventions quite well, though they would be well advised to interact more with others. Except for too much upper case in the title, there was nothing that obviously needed to be fixed. I did a couple of spotchecks for copyvio but didn't find anything. There's few tweaks that would be needed in the reference list, which uses citation templates, mostly correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim Zukas and rail transport articles

Tim Zukas (talk · contribs) has a habit of making large undocumented edits to articles. These combine factual changes and stylistic changes; this is typical. He does not, in general, use helpful or indicative edit summaries (see the history of Overland Limited (UP train). This behavior, including his frequent IP editing, is documented at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, although I had no involvement with the creation of that page. I want to make clear that I'm here in my capacity as an editor; I have not used my tools in this dispute.

The specific dispute that brings me here concerns Overland Limited (UP train). I created this article in August 2014; the only other major editor is Centpacrr (talk · contribs). Beginning in February, first as an IP and then as himself, he began making large-scale changes in the pattern described above. Many edit summaries were misleading or non-existent. Examples include:

• , which according to the edit summary was a revert of but made other stylistic changes and added a whole new completely unsourced section
• the edit summary says "several corrections" (and indicates an intention to edit war) but again mixes stylistic changes and content changes. Note that sources are only removed, and not added.
• as above, with the claim "your version has the errors, so you're the one that needs to explain. (Can't be done, tho.)" but no direct indication of what these errors were.
• among other wholesale revisions, actually removes the entire footnotes section and {{reflist}} template, and then revert-warred while denying he'd done any such thing.

This dispute had gotten out of hand and discussions on Talk:Overland Limited (UP train) were not fruitful. Centpacrr and I went back and forth with Tim Zukas, especially in Talk:Overland_Limited_(UP_train)#.22Corrections.22, about what these "errors" were, what sources he had, and so on. I will acknowledge that he was in the right on several issues, but extracting this information was a slow, painful process. I opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which you can see at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Overland_Limited_.28UP_train.29.23.22Corrections.22. With the kind assistance of Thibbs (talk · contribs) we identified five major points of contention and invested a solid month (with breaks) in discussing them, often in considerable detail. This was my first encounter with DRN and I rather liked it. Thibbs closed the discussion on April 1. Almost immediately Tim Zukas began making the same types of edits as before: . It's the same mixture of stylistic changes, factual changes, and removal of sources.

I think Centpacrr and I are at wits end here. This is a collaborative environment but Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway. It requires extraordinary effort to engage with this user. I'd like to ask that he, at the very least, be banned from Overland Limited (UP train). A more general topic ban from rail transport articles may be appropriate as he has engaged in similar edits on City of San Francisco (train) (see ) and City of Denver (train) (). Failing that, I'd appreciate any guidance on how to move this issue forward. Thank you to anyone who read this far. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway"

What he means is, I correct the errors that they have put in, then they put them back. Centpacrr wants me to explain the corrections-- naturally I figure he should explain his uncorrections. He should try, that is-- it can't actually be done.

"we identified five major points of contention"

He's referring to the five examples I gave of their errors. They were examples, not a complete list, and Centpacrr's latest version has lots more. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is your desired outcome then that you'll remove and/or rewrite anything you don't like or disagree with, then other editors will read your version and then add references which support it? I don't think that's how this project works. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thibbs pointed out to me that my creation of the LTA case page, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, was out of process, since Tim Zukas has never been banned, let alone blocked under his main account. I had been chasing down disruption from IPs at rail and air transportation articles, starting from the Boeing 314 Clipper article, and bit by bit, the disruption pattern pointed the way to Tim Zukas making a huge number of edits logged out, especially favoring a logged-out status when he wants to remove a bunch of text from an article. So the LTA case page was intended to document disruption from IPs based near me in Oakland and Berkeley, California, but it ended up documenting the behavior of Tim Zukas. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

However, Tim Zukas was blocked as IP 75.16.27.73 last year, blocked by The Bushranger for three months for "Long-term disruptive, nonconstructive editing without any discussion." Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

While User:Tim Zukas made a couple of useful suggestions, he also introduced a variety of other unsourced claims that when I researched them and came up with relevant reliable sources proved his speculations to be completely incorrect. Over the past month I have refined and expanded the article in a sandbox while the DNR discussion was going on and verified this material citing more the 20 new reliable and verifiable sources to support the material I added along with posting seven new images. When the DNR was closed I transferred the updated article that I had been developing to the mainspace. Within less than a day, however, User:Tim Zukas has already made three massive unexplained deletions which are, as usual, unsupported by any sources or citations. When asked to specify what he considers to be errors -- and to supply sources to support his claims -- as usual he never does so. His only response was a completely unhelpful comment that "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." (see here) Unfortunately this is not the first run in that I (and many other editors) have had with this user in aviation and railroad transportation articles over a period of years now in which he has exhibited this same disruptive behavior. Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I too had a run-in with Tim Zukas back in May 2013 on the San Francisco International Airport article. At that time he made a host of changes without any discussion or consensus. When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility. Considering all the contentious and sockpuppet IP edits that they have been involved in, it is really time for an extended block. David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing that an editor who's been here 5 years would make such a clueless as "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 314 article is now in its fourth semi-protection (this time for six months) exclusively because of this user's similar disruptive mass unsupported deletions using at least four sockpuppet anonymous IP's. It was not until after I had requested the current semi-protection that I was able to deduce that User:Tim Zukas and these sockpuppet IPs were one in the same. He also did the same with the Braniff International Airways article in which the editor he kept reversing claiming unspecified "errors" was a retired Braniff Captain who was also the Founder and President of Braniff Airways Foundation and Braniff Preservation Group, LLC which is essentially the airline's historical society!!! Centpacrr (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Zukas has a lot of 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility."

Show everyone the barrage of abuse.

""The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author."

Perhaps half of the numerous errors in Centpacrr's latest version of the article are misreadings of the source. A couple examples-- in the History section he says

"Lucius Beebe contends that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure to coerce better performance from the Chicago and North Western, and in fact a section of the Overland continued to use the C&NW during the period."

Anyone who reads Beebe's book can see that he contended nothing about the UP's motives and didn't claim no know anything about them. He offered that speculation and made it clear it was a guess.

In the Name section Centpacrr says

"The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden though to Chicago on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special"

No one knows where he got that idea-- the timetable in Beebe's book shows it running Council Bluffs to Oakland. The schedule wasn't fast enough for the one set of cars to make a round trip to Chicago in a week.

Presumably you commenters don't claim to be experts on the Overland Limited, and apparently you're inclined to think Centpacrr's errors aren't errors. Probably you don't have his sources to check. And sometimes it is the source that's wrong-- in the back of Signor's book Phelps said the "Limited" disappeared from the name in July 1947, but as I said before the timetables show that CNW and UP dropped the name in 1946 or earlier and SP dropped it in May 1947 or earlier. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is all beside the point because you've never (or almost never) been willing to add sources to articles. Your habit of massive unexplained removals is the issue at stake here, and you've only been forthcoming after long, tedious discussions on talk pages and elsewhere. This behavior is discourteous. Centpacrr and I are not the only ones who think so. We're not the only ones who've asked you to stop. That are you are ostensibly right on various minor factual points doesn't change this because it required enormous effort to extract from you (a) what your actual concerns were and (b) what your sources were. Let's not get distracted in some abstract discussion about the operation of a long discontinued train. The issue here is your discourtesy toward other editors and your disregard for the established editing norms on this project. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have moved my earlier response to the Zukas posting above to the Overland Limited's talk page because, as Mackensen correctly points out above, it is unrelated to the basic ANI issue here which is this user's long standing disruptive behavior and practice of making massive, unsupported deletions of content and sources in many railroad and aviation related articles as well as his frequently employing massive anonymous IP sockpuppetry to avoid detection and hide his identity while doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For background information, there was a long-running thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard about this article, Overland Limited (UP train), for more than three weeks, in which the participants were User:Tim Zukas, User:Mackensen, and User:Centpacrr, and in which User:Thibbs was the mediator. The thread seemed to go reasonably well, but went much longer than the usual time for threads at DRN, which normally deals with issues in one to two weeks. The mediator, Thibbs, then suggested, and the parties agreed, to take further discussion back to the talk page. Within a day after the thread was closed, this report was filed. I have nothing substantive to add, but that is the recent history. If the parties are willing to resume commenting on content and not on contributors, formal mediation might still be available, but not if there are issues of conduct including of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think for all the reasons stated above by myself, Mackensen, David J Johnson, Binksternet, the long time history of abuse of User:Zukas as documented in the LTA, his intransigence during the recent DRN, and the wide number of articles in which this user has engaged in his pattern of similar disruptive editing over the past five years, that "mediation" would not be a fruitful exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note here (since I've been mentioned a few times now) that I won't be commenting on this case. I'm a hardliner against comments from a mediation being used in an evidentiary manner and really my only experience with Tim Zukas comes from the DRN proceeding. I know DRN isn't quite the same as full mediation but it's close enough to the same idea to make me uncomfortable commenting. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thibbs, your yeomanlike efforts in the DRN over the past month were very much appreciated, and the eventual failure to reach a resolution through it were certainly not your fault. The issues with this editor are long standing and involve his conflicts with many other articles and editors. Mackensen and I had hoped that trying the DRN might change that but alas it only served to prove that the basic problem is a much more pervasive and fundamental one which is largely unrelated to this single article's content. So please accept Mackensen and my thanks for your efforts. It is folks like you that really make the project go. Centpacrr (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose air & rail topic ban for Tim Zukas

I think Tim Zukas is too anti-collegial to be allowed to edit here, but rather than suggest a block I propose instead a topic ban on the kinds of articles he edits with the greatest fervor: air and rail transportation, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support This would seem to me to be an appropriate next step although what I expect will happen is that this user will (as he has in the past) engage in block evasion by reverting to editing from the many anonymous IP sockpuppets he has used in the past. Fortunately, however, these are also now fairly easy to identify as they all geolocate to the East San Francisco Bay Area either as Comcast Communications IPs where he lives in Oakland, or to static IPs assigned to the Berkeley Public Library and the University of California-Berkeley (including several to the Office of the UC's President), a school which he apparently also attended in the late 1960s. If this happens then it may be necessary to request semi-protection of individual articles that he disrupts such is the current case with the Boeing 314 entry so that they can't be edited by unregistered IP users. Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment by Centpacrr 1: Regretfully, as Mackensen correctly notes (below), the utter chutzpah of this user's most recent edit shows me that he really has no intention of respecting WP's policies and guidelines, atmosphere of collegiality, assuming good faith, or abiding by the consensus of the community. In addition I have still never seen this user ever add a single source or citation in any article supporting anything he has either added or changed. Instead he often either removes sources and citations posted by other editors, and/or makes changes in the text that no longer accurately reflect sources and citations that he leaves in.

This user is clearly intelligent, interested in the topics of air and rail transportation, has a good deal of useful knowledge in the subject, and is apparently an experienced railfan photographer. However I find it puzzling that such a person -- especially one who has a demonstrated long standing and continuing association with such a great academic institution as the University of California at Berkeley from which my grandfather graduated in 1914 -- to be so dismissive of the value and necessity of supporting material in WP entries by citing reliable, verifiable sources. By his instant action in again rejecting this basic tenant of building an encyclopedia as well as refusing to work with any other members of the WP community, this user has, in my view, waived any remaining benefit of the doubt as to his intentions to ever do so but has instead clearly declared a personal "it's my way or the highway" approach to the project.

If Mr. Zukas were willing to cooperate collegially with the rest of the editors on WP -- especially when asked to explain and support his views -- then I suspect he would be a very valuable contributor to the project. The goal in building each entry is, after all, to "get it right" and that is a cooperative, collaborative process. While this user may be very knowledgeable, if he is not willing to work within that process it tends to only defeat rather than advance the project. If Mr. Zukas is not willing to do so and continues his present demonstrated disruptive editing practices, then perhaps a period of being blocked may also be appropriate in addition to a topic ban from editing aviation and railroad related articles until such time as he is willing to work with the community as opposed to at cross purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2: Unfortunately Mr. Zukas has elected instead to double down Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, with regret. I don't think this discussion has made any impression on Tim Zukas, given this edit just made with the blithe edit summary "Usual corrections." Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 1 above Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Mr Zukas has been given multiple opportunities to edit and communicate with other editors in a spirit of civility and constructive editing. This he has patently failed to do - plus editing (sockpuppeting) from various IP addresses, as well as his own account. Misplaced Pages is, in the main, a good example team work: Mr Zukas has failed to ever accept co-operation. David J Johnson (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2 above Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose immediate block of Tim Zukas for continued disruptive editing & sockpuppetry

• Subject user now also in violation of 3RR, continued disruptive editing, renewed sockpuppetry: Subject user Tim Zukas is now also in violation of WP:3RR for making a third mass unexplained and unsupported deletion of material and sources (see here) since the opening of this ANI, this time using one of his demonstrated sockpuppet IPs (128.32.11.112) to hide his identity which geolocates like many of his others to the University of California-Berkeley. I now propose an immediate block from editing of this user, a long term topic ban on editing air and rail transportation articles broadly construed, and long term (six month) semi-protection of the articles Overland Limited (UP train), City of San Francisco (train), and City of Denver (train). Centpacrr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Certainly Tim Zukas is edit warring, and he's violating WP:MULTIPLE by editing both logged in and logged out on the same article. I don't see that he has violated 3RR specifically, despite the continued edit warring which must be addressed. I suggest page protection combined with blocking of the IP and the Tim Zukas account. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Additional comment by Centpacrr: User Zukas has made five more massive unexplained and unsupported deletions of restored material and sources on the Overland Limited (UP train) article between April 2 (the day this ANI was opened by Mackensen) and today, April 6 (, , , , and ) including three between Saturday evening (April 4) and Monday morning (today, April 6). This indicates to me that despite the previous almost month long DRN and the opening of this process, this user has no interest or intention of cooperating and/or collaborating with the rest of the WP community in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Subject user Zukas made a SIXTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion on Tuesday evening, April 7. Again significant amounts of sourced material was deleted or changed; five cited sources removed; some new material added but none of it was supported by any citations or sources; no edit summary supplied. Centpacrr (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Subject user Zukas made a SEVENTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others on Wednesday morning, April 8 . Centpacrr (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. An indefinite one. Tim has shown absolutely no ability to act collaboratively. And a ready willingness to flip us all the bird with his blatant non-stop socking. It's time for this farcical nonsense to stop. He must be tossed out of here and told not to come back in no uncertain terms. If even call for a community ban. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Subject user Zukas made an EIGHTH even larger unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others (including the entire lede this time) since the opening of this ANI on Thursday afternoon, April 9 . Immediate edit blocking of this disruptive editor now sems essential. Centpacrr (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pushing to include unreliable sources still going on

As anticipated twice now, Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still pushes for the use of the unreliable, self-published source Graham Pascoe & Peter Pepper:

WCM incurs in policy violation, because he's fully aware of their status of WP:SPS which have never been published academically and who copied content from Misplaced Pages into that very pamphlet (as discovered by WCM himself). Moreover, he's now openly advocating for and backing edits with his own original research:

See also , WCM hasn't abandoned his WP:BATTLEFIELD philosophy. This is confirmed by his statement that WP:MEAT could be acceptable if not done "to damage Misplaced Pages", i.e. "to do the right thing":

Is this community willing to do so something about it this time?

PS: As a side note, it's relevant to mention that WCM is currently exporting Falklands-related fights to other wikis:

• Spanish Misplaced Pages:
• Wikisource:
• Commons:

--Langus (t) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing as WCM's mentor, most of this post seems irrelevant: conduct on other Wikis obviously cannot be addressed on this Wiki and most of the above is simply attacks on WCM (I can't help but note that you linked the diff to WCM being blocked on Commons, and not the current version of the thread on their talk page which shows that it was subsequently lifted). The only substantive complaint, that WCM re-added an unreliable source to the Capture of Port Egmont article does not seem to have been discussed anywhere prior to this post. Could not a different source be substituted if this source isn't satisfactory? Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Nick, my primary concern is that invalid source. I'm more than willing to use another one, wherever it be, but WCM has reverted its removal. I'm tired of pointing it out, both here and in talk pages of related articles; WCM's stance is always the same. You can see I warned this noticeboard about WCM's obsession with Pascoe & Pepper in the first two wikilinks above:

Also, I tried to discuss this source way back in time at WP:RSN, but WCM blocked that attempt:

However, it is patently clear that this is not an acceptable source. WCM should know this, having himself realized that these individuals copied content from Misplaced Pages. You seem to be suggesting that I should've started yet another discussion instead of filling an ANI. Let me ask you this: how many times is it needed to discuss the same topic before an incident being warranted? --Langus (t) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how WCM "blocked your attempt" to discuss this at RSN three years ago... You posted a question, WCM responded, and no-one else took an interest in the discussion. Making personal attacks here over ancient discussion threads hardly contributes to resolving content disputes. Judging from WCM's edit summary , he appears to be acknowledge that the source isn't without its problems, but that it's OK for an uncontroversial fact. As you aren't disputing the article content, I would suggest that you propose a superior reference - that would be a win-win for our readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source in dispute is basically a copy of Misplaced Pages information, then it can't be used at all. We can't reference ourselves for a fact, regardless of how controversial it is. A new source would need to be found which is not based on Misplaced Pages. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that this is the second time that Langus-TxT has raised a frivolous complaint about me at ANI , further he has a habit of reverting cited edits on Falklands topics if he dislikes it. , , , , . In Langus-TxT, we also have an editor who sees themselves as fighting British Warriors, British nationalists in en.WP on es.wikipedia It is not "one" of the British, Wee Curry Monster is the worst falklandista of Misplaced Pages. Welcome to their world haha. This diff is nothing more than a personal attack, however, its worth noting a very old RFC where this editor's habit of reverting cited edits was noted four years ago. They're still doing it. Here we see Langus accusing myself and @Kahastok: of being POV pushers. The issue we were trying to discuss was why there was a need for duplication of the same information. Further, I note @BedsBookworm: has expressed their frustration at Langus constantly reverting their edits , further when I re-assured Bookworm that I didn't think Langus was another editors meatpuppet he somehow managed to infer that was a personal attack on him ,. He is also being misleading in his use of diffs above, please note two remarks he claims were my attempt as WP:OR I withdrew, edit summary rm comments - withdrawn. The other is clearly not WP:OR, I state clearly that it was based on personal recollection from over a decade ago and I point to someone with better information ie I was trying to be helpful. Am I doing something wrong there, nor is it meat puppetry to suggest that someone with superior language skills could help address an issue, I didn't tell him what to write.

The comments about other wikipedias are of course irrelevant here but I would like to take a few minutes to address them. The issue on Commons relates to this image, I know from my long experience on Falklands matters that this image has been circulating for some time. Its actually a fake that was produced to claim an event was front page news, whereas it was a tiny footnote at the bottom of the theatre section. There are a group of Spanish editors (including Langus-TxT), who A) acted in a tag team to dominate the deletion nomination, B) substituted an original copy of the article for this fake version on es.wikpedia and C) added a description that is utterly misleading, historically inaccurate and pushing Argentine state propaganda. I merely tried to alert the admin community there eg .

What is relevant here, is that Langus-TxT also added this known fake copy of the Times article here .

The source mentioned is not based on Misplaced Pages and it is not referencing wikipedia. I did, however, notice that something I'd written on wikipedia had crept in there. WP:SPS has an exemption for acknowledged experts, Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts on Falkland Islands history, the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise endorsing an errata slip their prepared for his own work. In this case it was used to source an entirely uncontroversial fact. Removing a source and replacing it with a cn tag simply because the editor in question doesn't like what Pepper and Pascoe have to say is editing to damage the encyclopedia.

This is a recurring theme with this editor, when he sees a source he doesn't like (ie it contradicts certain nationalist claims in Argentina's pursuit of its Falklands sovereignty claim) he seeks to find excuses to ignore it and demand material cited to it is removed from Misplaced Pages. Latest example here where even though the source desribes her book The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. he attempts to remove content claiming its "amateurish" based on his false claim two different books are contradictory (they aren't by the way). I note he appears to be about to demand comments are removed in an article based on rubbishing the source as amateurish.

I really do think its about time the conduct of Langus was examined, he seems to create conflict unnecessarily too often. WCM_email 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Langus' complaint seems to be an exercise in mud-slinging - just as it was last time Langus brought WCM to ANI here. Throw mud around, see if it'll stick. If this happens again I think there may be some room for WP:BOOMERANG against Langus.

It is clear to me that Langus is not assuming WCM's good faith and has not done so for a very long time. This is amply demonstrated by the es.wiki links WCM provides: while clearly we can't do anything about es.wiki conduct, it is a clear demonstration of why there is an issue on en.wiki. If Langus objects to the source, the thing to do would be to discuss it the talk page, not to come straight to ANI with a trumped-up complaint that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. We should not encourage or support serial mudslingers such as Langus.

In terms of the source, we should be clear that the source is not a straight copy of Misplaced Pages and is not based on Misplaced Pages. It also is quite good at citing its own sources. There is no question that it takes a side in the dispute (you only need to read it to see that), but that does not make it unreliable in all circumstances as Langus claims. We could, in principle, look for the original sources, but they are often not easily accessible, and when the point is not in contention in the sovereignty dispute there is little reason to do so. Of course, if Langus wishes to find better sources, I don't think anyone is going to stop him. Kahastok talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And there you have it, the pamphlet that copied WCM's text from Misplaced Pages, self-published by two persons who don't have the qualifications and haven't produced anything of academic value (yet WCM calls them "acknowledged experts"), the pamphlet that despite "citing" sources makes wild novel interpretations of them, is being defended right here and right now before our eyes.

I'm not required to replace any source, as Kahastok and Nick-D are suggesting me to do: if that would've the case, it would be virtually impossible for us to remove unreliable sources from Misplaced Pages when they are currently being used to back ideas that are only found in them. My intention is to remove the reference to this unreliable source, and it's being resisted by the same guy who knows it's not reliable. WP:AGF has a limit, as every seasoned editor knows. --Langus (t) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that this is specially relevant now that we know that the Government of the United Kingdom is carrying cyberoperations to shape public's opinion on the Falklands issue, which includes "seeding the internet with false information": --Langus (t) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What I actually suggested was that you discuss the point on the talk page, and not immediately come running to WP:ANI to throw around wild accusations around just because somebody had the temerity to disagree with you on a matter of content. But given that you are not actually disputing the text, your finding a better source would resolve your issue entirely without any drama and probably without even any disagreement.

The question of reliability is a matter of content (i.e. not relevant here), but it is worth remembering that a source may be reliable in some contexts or for some things, and not reliable in other contexts and for other things.

But when it comes down to it, you're slinging mud shot after mud shot around here, presumably with the aim of getting some to stick on WCM. But your argument for sanctioning him boils down solely to the fact that he disagrees with you on a matter of content. There is nothing else. That is unacceptable behaviour - on your part. You accuse WCM of bad-faith editing - but again, the only basis you give for this accusation is that you disagree with him. Again, that's unacceptable. And it's not even the first time you've done this. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusing WCM of being part of some kind of British "cyberoperations" campaign in relation to content which you don't dispute (just the reference provided) is very silly. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that even at ANI Langus approaches every discussion in a combative manner. I did not state, as he claims, my own opinion that Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper were acknowledged as experts in Falkland Islands history, I pointed out that the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise . They have in fact been published in the Buenos Aires Herald (21st January 2011) and it certainly seems that the Argentine government takes their work seriously ,,,,. As Kahastok notes as a source it does take a side, however, they are very well cited and for none-contentious facts often a very convenient online source. Langus' assertion they are unreliable is entirely his opinion, another example of his habit of justifying removal of material by attacking the credibility of the source by speculation. Removal of a source to replace with a {{cn}} is not constructive. The accusation levelled of being a British Government Cyberwarfare operative is just silly (especially as ironically he cites a WP:SPS blog). The bad faith attack on the use of sources is just silly. I ask can something be done about this constant mud-slinging, I'd rather be writing articles that have time wasted at the drama boards. And for information I was 3 in 1963, I am not the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, I have an alibi as I was at playgroup. WCM_email 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I noted that the HUMINT operations are in march since 2008, nothing more (and BTW, Todo Noticias, Clarin, etc are reliable sources). If WCM believes I'm accusing him of being part of it, he's just showing his cola de paja, as we say in Rio de la Plata: my point was that Pascoe & Pepper may be very well part of this scheme. They have received attention in the media, mainly through the falklander newspaper Penguin News and the pro-British news portal Mercopress (which reprints articles from the Penguin News). Morevoer, The Buenos Aires Herald re-published Pepper's article because he submitted it to them, in an active effort to push their revisionist interpretation of Falklands' history. It was published alongside with Ambassador Cisnero's response. His last "publication" in this newspaper is a reader's letter. This is not the behavior nor the credentials of an "acknowledged expert". Lawrence Freedman is indeed a proper historian, but his work "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" is part of the UK Government Official History Series. The same government conducting the cyberoperations. In the very link WCM provided above, it can be seen that "the legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected". The Cabinet Office in turn contacted Freedman, and commissioned an errata slip.

I ask Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster and Nick-D a question. Suppose I find an article that reads: "Galileo Galilei built his first telescope in 1611 <ref>A self published source</ref>". But, alas, every reliable source I can find on the subject says he did so in 1609.

You are saying that I shouldn't remove a self-published source from Misplaced Pages without replacing it with another source. WCM says that removing it and leaving in place a {{cn}} tag is "not constructive".

How would you propose to solve this paradox? --Langus (t) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Panewithholder

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

In the just closed RfA of this user, who self-nommed 2 days after creating his account, I made a comment about not knowing whether the intent of the nomination was trolling or not -- now I believe that it was. In this edit to the Teahouse, the editor replaces an IP sig with his own sig, explaining that he made the previous edit while logged out. This establishes that IP -- User:24.228.60.155 -- as being Panewithholder. The day before that same IP vandalized a closed AfD with "APRIL FOOLS YOU FOOLS - THE HACKER LOL 4HT90ER4T4IUT3WT-029348T5REO" . Not the worst bit of vandalism in the world, but it does establish that 24.228.60.155/Panewithholder is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I suggest a block is in order. BMK (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I realize this issue involves a RfA but, this is probably best handled at WP:ANI (IMO) Mlpearc (open channel) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURO BMK (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree: WP:ANI is probably the best place to discuss this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point anyone looking into this at User talk:Panewithholder#Administrator and Bureaucrat userboxes - completely inappropriate. ansh666 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block - I !voted against this editor in their recent Rfa and feel a responsibility to speak out here. Claiming they are an admin and 'crat on their user page is the last straw. It's an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing. Let's pull the plug and move on. Jusdafax 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that they're not here. At the RfA they admitted to being a control-freak, and because they cannot have adminship, they seem to be trying to claim illegitimate authority. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete my account; I wikiquit! Panewithholder (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Updates to their userpage here and here suggest they're going to quit Misplaced Pages. Although I'd still support a block for their actions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially given this and this, after their post above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• We have more than enough for an immediate indef now, in my view. Jusdafax 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support, this user is WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for 31 hours, if anyone wishes to extend this, please feel free to do so without contacting me. Nakon 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that either the user has not read WP:FOOLS and got the joke late, or either its just a troll. In any case, its been blocked, so yeah. --TL22 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I hereby must continue to respectfully request an indef block for this series of incidents. 31 hours is likely not enough. Otherwise, this disruptive editor will most likely be back, wasting our time. Jusdafax 00:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well he did say he quit, so maybe we can just count on not coming back? Kharkiv07 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Panewithholder came to me upset over an edit he reverted on his second day, and I thought he was just a very inexperienced new wikipedian, and attempted to provide some gentle guidance. I'm beginning to suspect that may be in vain. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Painwithholder is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef IP autoblock is in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize everybody for my little "edit rage" as it appears. My co-worker borrowed my computer at my office a few days ago and well... he was a wiki troll. I am here to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry for the disruption in the community Panewithholder (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An user is very aggressively redirecting articles about economics that he doesn't like

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

• Hendrick 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may be in the wrong place but please see Special:Contributions/Hendrick_99, he has been on a rampage recently redirecting vast swathes of articles like Liability (financial accounting) and Wage labour to highly general articles like Economics and Capitalism apparently because they have quality issues or he's offended by Marxian economics. It is out of all proportion and seems to be doing a great deal of damage. Some of the redirects make absolutely no sense like "wage labour" to "capitalism." He is then in some cases dumping the article text into the redirect target, where of course it gets removed because nobody wants to fuck up a good article by adding a massive tangent of much lower quality. So effectively he's just deleting Misplaced Pages's entire coverage of some pretty important concepts. TiC 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. In three days, March 24-25th, Hendrick_99 (talk · contribs) made over 500 edits, rewriting chunks of major articles about economic subjects. All those articles now need to be looked at: Assets, Private property, Academic perspectives on capitalism, Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory), Oligarchy, Society, History of propaganda, Human rights in Singapore, Capitalism , Wage labour, Binary economics, The Capitalist Manifesto, Finance. That's just from the last 50 edits. The edits aren't individually bad, although there may be a political agenda. The editor seems to have stopped for now, and some of the overly bold merges have been undone. A bit of gentle persuasion to get the editor to back off a bit might be indicated, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics should be notified. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of some work, I'll take a look and patch up whatever I can. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for keeping tabs:

• Financial asset (H99 was in fault)
• Assets (H99 was in fault)
• Private property (H99 was not in fault)

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Labour economics (H99 was in fault)
• Supply and demand (H99 was in fault)
• Labor theory of value (H99 was in fault)
• Wage labour (H99 was in fault)
• Key market (H99 was in fault)

I've reverted these, since i did not think they were improvements. If you want to roll me back, please feel free... Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Capitalist mode of production (H99 was not in fault)
• Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) (H99 was in fault)‎
• Oligarchy (H99 was not in fault)
• Academic perspectives on capitalism (H99 was not in fault)
• Economics (H99 edited, now someone's done an extensive revision, I don't think I'm experienced enough to understand anything of this sort)

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hendrick 99 still needs a notice on his talk page about this discussion and I think a warning is called for although I'm unsure what is called for. I think these edits were in error but done in good faith. Liz 14:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified him. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fast Block — Anybody blanking labour theory of value and converting into a redirect is a vandal, plain and simple. If I had tools I'd be riding the block button. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• They did not edit since March 25, but I agree that if they reappear and continue they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  In addition, they have copypasted content and seem to have little understanding of the concept of copyright.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I second the motion that the editor be blocked if they come back and resume doing this stuff. Now closing this discussion because it's obvious what will happen if he starts up again. He has made no further edits since 25 March. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Story of the Three Bears

I've sent the article The Story of the Three Bears to FA review. However one editor is making a point about the uncited material I"ve removed. This guy appears to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else. I need him to back off. At this point, he has effectively destroyed any chance for the article to attain FA status. This article is FA worthy but it will not reach that status with this busy bee making a fuss over uncited material. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure whose edits we're meant to be addresing here without the other editors name. Amortias (T)(C) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

His user name is Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His busy bee-ness is found on the article's talk page. He's also threatening me. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Where,exactly, is he threatening you? (Mind you, if I were on the receiving end of this sort of crap, I'd be tempted to get a bit threatening, myself.) Having nommed an article for FA does not make all your work on the article immune from criticism, nor does it make the article untouchable by anyone other than you. Deor (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think they may have been referring to this threat to revert. . Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin response) That's my assumption as well -- which means that by going for the even-more-generous-than-being WP:BRD order of BDR, the complaining editor claims to have been threatened. Complaining editor has also been engaging in personal attacks, making unsourced statements about what Misplaced Pages "wants", denying the free use status of an image published in 1890 drawn by an artist who has been dead for more than 80 years. If said editor is concerned with someone "appear to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else", they may wish to consider their own actions. This appears to be trying to drag someone to the Admin board over a simple content disagreement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• SeeSpot Run While not implying any immediate comment on the validity or otherwise of your case, as a procedural note I object to your raising the case here without pinging or otherwise notifying the person that you accuse; not presenting references to alleged wrong doing (comparatively small point) and your presenting unsubstantiated perspectives ("His busy bee-ness.." not even with citation of related guideline content) as fact. GregKaye 08:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User:SeeSpot Run is currently under a sockpuppet investigation. DawnDusk (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Page moves of DC Metro stations.

I recently closed Talk:Greenbelt station#Requested move 7 February 2015, a multi-move seeking to use a lowercase "s" for the names of various DC Metro stations, as not moved for lack of consensus after a two-month discussion. There were valid points made on both sides, including the existence of sources using both capitalized and uncapitalized forms, so I felt that a clear consensus was needed. At the time of the discussion, the titles with the capitalized "S" were fairly new, resulting from a December 2014 multi-move request primarily aimed at removing "(WMATA station)" from these titles. Following my closure, other editors moved the various pages at issue to the lowercase "s" title, primarily based on WP:USSTATION. I have no dog in this hunt (other than having closed the last discussion, and being a frequent Metro rider from living in the DC Metro area), but as my closure could be deemed involvement, I leave it to the community to determine the appropriate resolution of the matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably you meant to notify me and also note that in addition to these moves I opened and continued discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (US stations) designed to break the impasse for which the RM process failed, and linked to it from after the RM you closed noting "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution". That would be a constructive place for people who care to weigh in. What was most clear at the RM is that there's a consensus that the capped titles were wrong; we're just not aligned yet on the best fix. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the RM result, you should've filed yet another move review. This seems to be a disaster in terms of procedural errors. There was the first request, which moved to the articles to the capitalised title. There was the move review for that request, which you withdrew in the face of opposition. There was this new RM for the lowercased titles by you, which was yesterday closed as no consensus. In merely hours after the RM was closed as "no consensus" to move to the lowercase title, all of the articles involved in the RM had been moved to that title by Dicklyon (talk · contribs). He should've known not to defy the RM result. He should've given up, which would've been the right thing to do, or should've filed a move review or RM. This is absurd. The articles need to go back to where they were. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to revert Dicklyon's and my moves of these articles from lowercase "station" back to uppercase "Station". (e.g. move L'Enfant Plaza station back to L'Enfant Plaza Station) since obviously they're against consensus. I didn't realize it until another user brought up the issue at my talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius it's the responsibility of you and Dicklyon to revert your own moves> GregKaye 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did what I could, but there are some pages that I can't move. Epic Genius (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think another point to make is that an admin moved the Greenbelt station page after a request at WP:RM for uncontroversial moves, despite the fact that it was clearly controversial, there having been numerous RMs and an MR. Surely there's some duty of care for admins to check that "uncontroversial" requests are actually uncontroversial (e.g. by looking at the talk page for RMs) in order to weed out editors looking to game the system after they've failed in other avenues. @Epicgenius: you should be able to move the pages back yourself, unless someone has tagged the redirects created by the move (sadly there are some editors that do this in order to prevent moves back) – certainly the L'Enfant Plaza station should be moveable. Number 57 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The re-moves are proceeding rather slowly on my end, so I may need help with the re-moving of the articles. Admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station to Potomac Avenue Station. Epic Genius (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to see how you consider moving back to the least favored titles as progress, but I'm going to step back from this mess now that you've taken that on. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I made that mess? We both commented at WT:USSTATION and you supported the move to lowercase titles while I opposed it. The !vote ended with a decision of no consensus. Yet you moved the pages anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And you followed up and moved the others, the controversial ones that I had skipped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I corrected my stupid mistake of wanting a uniform naming convention. BTW, I only moved five or six of the articles that you skipped, so that's hardly a strong point. Epic Genius (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station back to Potomac Avenue Station because we now have Potomac Ave Station and Potomac Ave station due to a naming error. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) There is a RM in progress at Talk:Potomac Avenue station. Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon and mass moves

Let me quote what I wrote at a recent AE request that failed because the scope of the applicable DS apparently didn't cover this matter.

I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

I suggest that all users that comment here read the AE request, which is laden with evidence of similar mass changes by Dicklyon. In many cases he is correct, and in many cases he is incorrect. In either case, he has no concern for consensus and is content to flout it. Something needs to be done. This mess is evidence of larger procedural failings in Misplaced Pages processes, and proof that Dicklyon simply hasn't got the message. A user proposed at the AE request that Dicklyon be banned from moving pages outside the RM process. I now agree with that notion. Whilst the matter is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, the community may impose such a restriction. I believe that enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – as proposer. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

They also recommended an interaction ban between us, which would be welcome relief. If you're going to stalk me and try to get me sanctioned, you should at least find moves that are not ones that you supported; makes you sound kind of lawyerish, at best. And note my good-faith efforts to resolve the problem, as linked above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The reverted change to the wording of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (US stations) was not a good-faith effort to resolve a problem, but appears to have been disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

He admitted as much. He described it as "provoking action". RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's never OK to try to provoke action? Or that no action is need here? Or what? Is it always wrong to make a point? Was my edit in any was disruptive, in changing the naming convention to reflect actual practice? Why don't you think of a constructive way to work on the problem if you don't like my attempts? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester , Dicklyon while valuing both of your contributions on different issues I would prefer to see one or both of you banned or topic banned than for you to have an IBAN in place while still being able to work on the same articles. GregKaye 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. I saw the RM/TR request, as that's on my watchlist. I also had the Greenbelt Station page on my watchlist, as I participated in a previous RM there. I participate in many RMs. Once I arrived at the page, It quickly became clear that a disaster was occurring. "Good faith efforts to resolve the problem" mean little considering that you knowingly caused the problem. Please explain, then, why you moved the articles directly after the RM was closed against such a move? What in your mind gave you the right to do such a thing? RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you recall supporting the overturn of the botched RM that created the mess in the first place? See Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. My opinion on that matter remains the same. That does not mean that one should circumvent consensus. That battle was lost, and the page should've remained where it was. There is no excuse for making a mass move of tens of Washington Metro station articles directly after a move discussion closed as "no consensus". You've already been warned about making mass moves plenty of times. From a purely strategising perspective, it really didn't make sense to make these moves directly after the RM closed, when you should've known that there would've been scrutiny on the articles in question, and that your moves would likely be reverted. Given that you've been around the block a few times, that you're no mass move virgin, what exactly compelled you to make these moves? Was it to make a point, as with when you essentially vandalised the WP:USSTATION guideline, and then edit-warred with a user to "deride the project"? RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do trout me for that pointy edit. It was a pretty good point though, wouldn't you agree? Not vandalism at all, but an embarrassing reflection of actual practice that people seem unable to deal with and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a restriction on moves without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a temporary restriction, with the length to be decided later. It's obvious that Dicklyon has done this repeatedly, moving pages against consensus (or the lack thereof). Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Obvious? Without evidence? Where have I moved pages against any consensus or against any lack of consensus? Certainly there was no consensus for these articles to have uppercase Station (if you think there was, please try to find it and point it out). Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see. On Talk:Greenbelt Station, the 2nd move request closed as: Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution at 00:29, 6 April 2015. Then, you performed 81 moves that were specifically against the non-consensus. One time is an oversight, two times is probably a mistake, but 81 times is far enough. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Look in the AE request. He has done this before, and has been warned about it before. A notable example that was found in that request is the case of the Blackfriars Massacre. Here is what I had written in the request:

Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue".

This is not new behaviour for Dicklyon. I asked above, why, Dicklyon, did you think that making 81 moves like this was acceptable? You've been warned about it before. You must've known you were going to be reverted. Why did you do it? RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did it to try to resolve the problem (which you had supported doing); I was surprised to see the reverted by Epicgenius, especially after he originally jumped in to help complete the process. Most of the people who opposed fixing this said "weak oppose"; there was no significant support for the idea that leaving them at capitalized Station would be better, so I thought this might actually work. When processes fail, one needs to look outside standard processes to try to fix it. I can remind you about how the process failed here again if you need. Your reluctance to let me attempt to fix it still baffles me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did it because I originally didn't see the closed RfC. After I saw it, I reverted myself. Epic Genius (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I see, you literally meant "against non-consensus". OK, guilty of that, but not of moving against consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RG, it's not clear why you think your warring behavior on Blackfriars massacre is so much better than mine, or why your having it moved back to improper capitalization settles the matter. The article does not cite a single source that capitalizes it, and does not use caps in the article, so why the caps in the title? We can still fix this, but your insistence on a full RM discussion on each thing you over-capitalize has been a pain, and I haven't gotten around to this one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some sources to Blackfriars massacre, since it had none, and moved it to lowercase again since the sources don't support an interpretation as a proper name. Let's see if anyone is bothered by this. Please don't claim that there was ever an examination that ended in a suggestion that it should be capitalized; it has never been looked at, except by me, and reverted by you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. It was part of the mass RM. There was no consensus to move the page at that time. You have made a bold move yet again, skipping the discussion phase of WP:BRD, forcing through your own changes without regard for standard Misplaced Pages processes. This utter disregard for the RM procedure has not gone unnoticed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: First of all, I don't understand how you could construe a move discussion closed as "not moved" as meaning anything other than that there was no consensus to move the article. I've pinged the closer, so he can provided his opinion.

Second, I reverted your bold move per WP:BRD. The burden of evidence lies on the person making a bold change, not the person maintaining the status quo. An RM involving the article failed, just as in this case. There clearly wasn't any consensus for you to come back and do the same thing gain, modifying the redirect so that no one could challenge you. I did not "over-capitalise" anything. I did not write the article. I did not place it at the capitalised title. That was the stable title for years, and I simply restored it pending justification. Your attempt at gaining justification in the RM failed, and you never filed another. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we all understand that. It was very explicit in his closing statement where he said we're still no closer to consensus. My point is that the capitalized Station left them even further from consensus that moving them to lowercase would. The lowercase station did at least once achieve consensus at the original Greenbelt move, if you recall, but then the RM got editted and the closer didn't notice and closed to uppercase by mistake. If you know a process for trying to get this fixed finally, please do speak up since my attempts (MR, RM, just doing it) are still being thwarted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already fixed. The move review determined that there was no problem. The second move request was closed as "not moved". Accept that consensus is against a move, and find something else to do for a while. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. No such determination was made, and the recent closer said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." It's very clearly unresolved; why won't you help fix what you agreed needed to be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve the problem. That's why I'm suggesting that you be banned from page moves outside of the RM process. This will resolve all of our problems. It will allow the moves to be carried out, if they are justified, and it will allow the endless disruption of mass unilateral no-consensus page moves and reverts to end. I hope you realise that even when you are right, your approach destroys any credibility you might've had. Other editors have told you so. This needs to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for prioritizing my credibility over the real problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. What I see from the links here, and from other recent threads on this subject, is that Dicklyon's been attempting to impose his preferred style, regardless of what the vast majority of editors think and wish. It looks as if he cares more about The Truth on formatting/capitalisation/commas than about collaboration with others. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I have only been trying to correct the flawed RM that capitalized these station articles against the clear support for lowercase at the original RM (see this diff for how that RM got perverted before being closed wrongly). And it is not my preferred style; my preference would be to go back to before the attempt to meet the new WP:USSTATION guidelines, but my impression was that those guideline have consensus, so I was not going to fight that. Just looking for a way to fix the error, or get some attention on it from someone who can. Is anyone listening? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, and you filed a new RM for that. It was closed as not moved (emphasis not mine). So you shouldn't have moved the pages, yet you did anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, you have said truth now. By any reasonable standard of normal process, I shouldn't have moved the pages, yet I did anyway. Acknowledged and explained in detail already. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• To demonstrate the clear callousness and lack of WP:HEARing in Dicklyon's heart, one must only look at the Blackfriars Massacre article I mentioned above, now having been promptly moved to the lowercase in defiance of the previous RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I wonder is there is any substantive objection to this move now that it has sources and it's more obvious that sources support lowercase. It has never been examined in an RM, has it? I can't find a place where anyone has mentioned it in an RM besides me, in a withdrawn RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide substance, not the other way around. Regardless, it was examined in an RM, the mass RM at the Watts Riots talk page. There was clearly no consensus for the move. The close wrote "closing without prejudice against reopening move requests individually or in small groups as described below. Editors who contributed to this discussion should be pinged to alert them to any subsequent discussions". Where did you notify all of the editors that participated in the mass move of the change to Blackfriars Massacre? Where is the discussion? How many times must you be reverted? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The substance is there, in the references. The discussion at a previous RM does not exist. Nobody but you has expressed an opinion against this move, and even you have not made any specific claim of a reason, as far as I can find, just a revert edit summary claiming "English failure". Most other massacres and riots were lowercases after being brought to RM; this one was not brought to an RM where it was discussed, just the original multi-RM that was withdrawn over objection of too many to look at. Such are simple facts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of editors took issue with the basis for all the moves, let alone this one. There was clearly no consensus, and regardless, you did not follow the process set about by the closer of the mass RM. Please revert your non-consensus change (again) and start an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, nobody objected but you, and you've move warred it again to the uppercase title contradicted by the sources. Just saying... Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "war" anything. The stable title for years is the default title. There is no consensus for a move, and you've not followed any of the appropriate processes. You are ignoring the "D" in BRD, and you are ignoring the previous RM result. Read the RM, and read the objections of editors left and right. Read the statement by the closer. This behaviour by Dicklyon is unacceptable. He has now just moved the article again to his preferred title, contravening the RM, and has modified the redirect to prevent reversion. Dicklyon is so bold as to continue this behaviour amidst an ongoing AN/I thread on the same behaviour. This is a clear message to the community on Dicklyon's part. He doesn't care. He'll do what he wants, regardless of any processes, consensuses, guidelines, or policies. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support any and all restrictions to Dicklyon's mass moves, moves against consensus, and generally disruptive, callous and arrogant behavior toward other editors. Red Harvest (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note that I just left the following on Dicklyon's talk page:

:::4 2 move reverts in one day at Blackfriars massacre, plus "freezing" the move in place with an edit to the redirect, all while there is an active ANI thread about your moves, plus a long history of edit warring blocks, including two recent ones... something has got to give. I was all set to block you for 3 weeks until I saw CBW's comment here. Although I don't think your participation in a discussion about this is that important a consideration (because whether it's lowercase or uppercase doesn't matter), I'll defer to CBW's judgement.

However, you should be aware that I will block you from editing if you revert anyone else's page move (or revert their revert of your page move) on any page in the next 3 weeks (the duration of the intended block). So that's a 0RR restriction for page moves in April.

This is in lieu of blocking for the single incident mentioned above, not as closure of the wider-ranging ANI thread. Another admin, who spends more time reviewing and closing that thread, may determine that additional constraints are necessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note the last sentence; this is not closing this thread, it's an FYI for people participating in this discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I'm an idiot and miscounted; it was actually 2 move reverts yesterday, the other 2 were in March. Apologies to Dicklyon. Still, I think 0RR is still justified, and I'm pleased to see Dicklyon has agreed to it on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It would of course be much better to apply the same restriction symmetrically to the other warring party. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "warring party". I did nothing other than revert your change to the Blackfriars Massacre article, which was against a previous RM consensus. You still haven't started an RM to gain consensus. What's more, the particularly slimly way you started moving this article again after I made explicit mention of it above does not bode well for your character. I have never initiated mass moves to a preferred style. Never. All that I did here was revert a change that had no consensus per WP:BRD. I never made any bold moves. Zero. I am not the problem. You are. Do not attack the people that are forced to clean up your messes, as you did to those that were forced to restore tens of "S/station" pages in line with the RM result there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very "slimly" of me. As we discussed above, you had claimed to have "fixed" and "settled" something by reverting my move. You called attention to the state of it, which you had left broken. So I fixed it again, and said let's see if anyone besides you objects; you didn't give anyone a chance, so we still don't know. We could do an RM, but it seems like overkill for such a simple fix, don't you think? Not every simple fix needs to be made controversial, though you keep stalking me and doing that. Why do you want to capitalize things when so few sources do? Why do you assert "English failure" when things are rendered in the normal case used by sources? Like I said, you yank my chain, I yank back. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, or that it's not a bit disruptive, just that you are part of this war, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It was resolved. After the first revert, an RM was properly opened by you. There was no consensus for a move, though the closer set out a process by which moves at individual pages could be carried out. You did not follow that process. Instead, you came back months later and tried to move the page unilaterally again, against consensus in the RM. All you needed to do was follow the procedure set out by the closer, namely starting an RM and notifying all participants in the mass RM. If you had done that, there would've been no problem. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right. There was no consensus at that time, and the closer suggested a process that I did not follow for this one since the result would appear to be uncontroversial. I have now opened that RM; perhaps you're right and it will be controversial. Seems like just a waste of time, like the 26 ohters that needed RMs to fix the over-capitalization due to your objections, but let's see: Talk:Blackfriars Massacre#Requested move 9 April 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Dick has to learn that disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point is childish nonsense and he must learn to abide by consensus. His reading of guidelines is not automatically right, as he seems to think, nor is his behavior in any way collaborative. He should be required to use the RM process for any pageoves and abide by the consensus decision regardless if he agrees with it or not. And he must also not come back three months later again just to try to get the answer he wants if consensus disagrees with him. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I admit to the childish nonsense part with respect to my recent behavior (or at least that being an acceptable interpretation of my out-of-process attempt to fix a problem), and to my reading of guidelines not necessarily being right. But as far as I know I have not dis-abided any consensus, nor come back to mess with something after consensus was achieved; if you think I have, please point to where. Nobody has shown such a case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ban him for two hours, that'll teach him. As I've said before (under oath, with Goddess as my witness - or was that a dream?), Dicklyon does good work on Misplaced Pages, and when he stirs the pot the pot stays stirred. Some mistakes and an adamant attitude, sure, but in the process he has done hundreds if not thousands of good page moves which haven't been questioned, probably considered himself on a roll, and when a few 'Stop' signs pop up he plows right on through them. Given that he's likely learned a little more about 'Stop' signs, I would say that a ban of any length of time be limited to a very small length of time, and maybe ask him to not make controversial moves with a little wider perspective of what might be controversial. But a long ban, as has been implied? In almost all instances, give or take a few capital letters, Misplaced Pages is better with him here. Randy Kryn 00:06 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: No one suggested a "ban" in the sense that you're talking about. The only thing that was suggested was a ban on making page moves outside of the RM process, which would allow Dicklyon to continue to work in his chosen topic areas without the significant disruption caused by unilateral mass page moves. I do not want Dicklyon "banned" (blocked) either, and recognise his contributions to the project. That's exactly why this solution is the best, as it will ensure that he follows the proper procedures, making his edits beyond reproach. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good,'and never mind. Randy Kryn 00:12 10 April, 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban from moving pages outside of the RM process. Keri (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unilateral lockup - it is clear that there are several parties involved in the protracted tug of war, but two stand out in particular as being recalcitrant. It seems rather disingenuous that one party in the ongoing dispute is seeking to outmanoeuvre another by having a unilateral move ban imposed. -- Ohc  08:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose—Is this a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester? It looks like it. In my view, RGloucester is the disruptor—he has a personal dislike of downcasing, and has stated at MOS he wants to see upcased titles generally, contrary to our long-standing practice. This is taking the campaign far too far, RGloucester. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against downcasing, when it is done with community consensus. Without it, there is no justification. I cannot be a disruptor. I have not made hundreds of mass moves against results in RM discussions. I haven't. Never. Who's done that? That's Dicklyon. I have never capitalised an article. Not one. Who's removed capital letters from hundreds of articles, even ones where an RM result rejected that removal? That's Dicklyon. I do not want "upcased articles". There is no evidence of me ever having made such a change. I've started many articles with lowercased titles. All that I want is a level playing field, not one rigged by one editor and his associates. I hope other editors are aware that two above editors are part of a longstanding group, together with Dicklyon, and that they may well have had an influence on the present behaviour. I'd also like to inform that "Tony1's" canard about "longstanding practice" is incorrect. Please see the section below, where it is made apparent that the present wording was introduced unilaterally by Dicklyon in 2011, with no community consensus behind him. It just so happens that other two most strident editors at the time of that change were these two editors. I'd also note that both Tony and Dicklyon were parties to an ArbCom case related to such matters. There is a long pattern here, and it doesn't involve me. In so far as "harassment" is concerned, I was made aware of this thread because AN/I is on my watchlist, and because I had the Greenbelt station page on my watchlist. I had previously participated in the move review there, and in other USSTATION moves. There is a clear problem here. Editors can choose either to listen to Tony and his ilk, or one can look at what uninvolved administrators, such as Nyttend, have said. It is clear that the present problem has very little do with me, if anything. Do not let a group dominate Misplaced Pages processes. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing error?

By the way BD2412, though I do appreciate your good-faith effort in closing this thing at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015, the longest ever backlogged RM item, probably, that nobody wanted to touch, I do think you got it wrong when you said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." If you look closely, I think you'll see that we are indeed quite a bit closer on how to fix the chaos that BDD created with this ubelievably stupid and out-of-process edit back in December that caused that RM to close to the opposite case of what most of its supporters supported. In the recent RM, you can neglect the ones who were complaining about their dislike of the WP:USSTATION guideline more generally, and take it to just be about the case fixing question as intended (that is, ignore the objections of DanTD and SmokeyJoe, as well as the spurious procedural objection by Calidum, as orthogonal to the question that the RM is about). Then consider the objections to lowercasing. BDD himself wrote "If a bunch of editors agree with me, cool, but otherwise, I don't want the closer giving this comment too much weight." This was followed by two more "Weak Oppose per BDD" (one even struck out his Oppose to change it to Weak Oppose). The other three opposes seem to prefer uppercase, but give no coherent reasons; just "NOTBROKEN" and "local differences". Obviously "NOTBROKEN" means they haven't been paying attention, since the process that capitalized these was massively broken.

Six respondents supported fixing the case error per WP:USSTATION, backing out of the original corrupted RM. On the basis of either numbers or strength of argument, it is clear that we are closer to a resolution to fix this.

In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic.

So, DB2412, any ideas what to try next to get out of this mess? Are you suggesting we just leave the massive breakage that BDD caused by changing case in an RM after people had supported his original proposed move to lowercase station? I did try to modify WP:USSTATION to say we would just leave it broken, but that got reverted as the pointy snarkiness that it was. Maybe you can come up with something better, like revising your close to put an end to this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate way to challenge an RM result is to file a move review, not to write essays at AN/I or unilaterally overturn the closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, and we saw how well that worked last time, when after weeks of comments and weeks of request for closure we abandoned it since that WP:MR is a deserted wasteland where nothing happens. Are you suggesting I try that again? I could, but I'm told it's polite to give the closer a chance to rethink the close first, so here we are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you follow the established processes. If you had questions about the closure, you should've asked the closer on his talk page. You should not've moved 80 some-odd articles against that closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, lots of should'ves. I already confessed to ignoring some rules and making a bunch of out-of-process moves. So if you have no substantive reason to think anything I did was actually a bad thing, and it's just about following rules, move along. You did after all support all these moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone argues for something per support in a guideline, it is perfectly reasonable to counter by criticising the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and I am not objecting to your objection. Just noting that since it was orthogonal to the question, it does not necessarily detract from resolving that problem; it still leaves the problem you object to, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Um.. OK. Good. There's a lot of fuss, and I am not entirely sure what fuss this one is. You pinged me, but I am not sure if you are asking for my input? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear, there were legitimate arguments on both sides of the proposal, including citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that "Station" was part of the proper name of the locations. Where the policy allows for flexibility in light of the evidence, and the evidence is inconclusive, then you need consensus to effect a change. In this case, there were eight editors supporting the proposed move and eight editors opposing the proposed move, which is hardly consensus for any change of the status quo. bd2412 T 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I believe you may have hallucinated the "citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that 'Station' was part of the proper name of the locations"; if I missed it, can you point it out? But my main point is that we ARE much closer to a consensus to fix the problem that BDD's outrageous out-of-process subterfuge created, even if there's not quite a clear consensus yet; which is why I attempted to resolve it by an out-of-process fix. Thanks again for closing it anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick, please tone down your language. You seem to be the only one fuming about my "outrageous" "subterfuge", which in fact was a good faith edit based on the course of that original discussion. Please keep the pejoratives to yourself. You'd think I was committing BLP violations left and right, not preferring a different capitalization than you, where both forms are acceptable. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that I thought it was not done in good faith, or that it was subterfuge, but it was invisible to the closer who didn't see the switcharoo there. It was outrageously out-of-process to convert the support for lowercase station to look like support for uppercase, and it caused the mess that we are still unable to find a way to recover from. Yes, I am the only one fuming, and I'm only fuming because I'm weak and fall for RGloucester's baiting and thwarting my every attempt to make progress. I think maybe I'll just start ignoring the station mess, and let you all live with this stupid thing you did that became precedent for continuing overcapitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick, if you really feel that these articles should be moved, file another RM or move review. Don't unilaterally move the pages, and don't move them against consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you hear how stupid you're being with those admonitions? Obviously the RM process did not and cannot be the fix here, due to the continued confusion caused by people who want to use it to discuss other problems than the one I am trying to fix. And the MR process never does anything. And I would never move pages against a consensus; never have, never will, so stop implying I would or did unless you're going to show where. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately for me, I put in earbuds while editing Misplaced Pages. And a non-consensus is still a consensus to "not do anything". Nothing to do unless you want to have a new, useless, protracted RfC about what the new names for the articles should be. Epic Genius (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, a failure to find consensus is not a consensus to "not do anything"; never has been that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The closer has made clear that "not moved" means "not moved". There was no consensus in favour of move, meaning that a move should not've been carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already agreed and stipulated that I shouldn't have made those moves, per normal processes. But I did not move against any consensus. There was no consensus to move, and no consensus to not move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read where it said "not moved" in the RM? This means that there was since there was no consensus to move, there was a lack of consensus at all, which follows that the next decision would be not to move. Epic Genius (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the earlier question, it was noted in the discussion by User:BDD that the fully capitalized form is used on the pylons, for example the one pictured to the right. Whatever interpretation may be given to this, it is a legitimate basis to believe that this is the proper full name of the station. bd2412 T 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

However, "Federal Triangle" is the only actual proper name. The station named "Federal Triangle" may have the "Station" in its name capitalized in some sources, lowercase in other sources, and missing altogether in yet other sources. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, hard to fathom that anyone fell for or repeated that idea that the pylon makes it a proper name. What next, articles on Police Station, Nurse Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, Eye Wash Station, etc. that I pointed out on signs at the USSTATION RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at WT:USSTATION. Nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that appearing capitalized on a sign does not make them proper names? What was I thinking? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. This is not the correct venue for discussing the RM result. Either file a new RM or file a move review. Do something. Discussing it here accomplishes nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Do something" is what brought us here. Why don't you open the next RM or MR? You want this fixed, too, don't you, as you said in a few places already? Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic. To be clear, no I was not "frantic", I just wasn't notified of the RM's closure and rushed to correct my error. The mass renaming has little to do with the template, just that it creates a lot of holey redirect loops for no reason. Epic Genius (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

All of this came about because of two requests at WP:RFPP.

I left a message at User talk:RGloucester. I left the exact same message at User talk:Dicklyon. A few minutes later I had to leave a second message at RGloucester, who replied with this and then removed everything while indicating that I should not post on his talk page again. That's his choice and I have no problem with it.

RGloucester then left a message at my talk page to which I replied. As you can see, RGloucester had some concerns about what I had said. He asked me to "rescind these attacks and apologise, lest you be blocked yourself."

Now, obviously I don't see any personal attack there and I'm not going to rescind anything and I'm not apologising either. However, if anyone feels that I did make a personal attack then please block me. I'm going to be gone for about 3 hours. This is a real 3 hours and not back in 10 minutes because someone replies here.

Notified the two editors, Dicklyon and RGloucester. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a superfluous thread. If you want history and context, it should appear in the above and extant thread. If you were not aware of that thread, that might be why you were unaware of the nature of your comments. Please read it, and all will be clear. I would suggest that this be merged with the other thread. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this thread to a subsection of the existing thread. If you want to understand why I consider these remarks "personal attacks" you can read my response above. In short, a posted a note about Dicklyon's earlier behaviour at the Blackfriars Massacre page above. Following that posting, Dicklyon promptly moved the page to his preferred title, in retaliation for my posting. I reverted, in line with the previous RM result and BRD. He then reverted me again, modified the redirect, and necessitated a RM/TR request. Nothing I did was out of order, and suggestions that I should be blocked for reverting clearly disruptive page moves is nothing less than an attack. Now that I realise that Mr Weather was not aware of this thread, I understand why he would've made such an error. Luckily, this is now resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes one gets a bit strident when trying to right perceived wrongs. Happens to us all. Take the warning, admit the problem, and get back to work. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am as pure as a lily, and I hardly want to be perceived otherwise. I wonder who's the strident one here? The one who moved the article, after it had just been brought up at AN/I, or the one who maintained the status quo in line with our policies? RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, very hard to tell the difference; and I wonder what policies you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? I think it is very clear what I mean. Other editors above understood, and I imagine you can too. Don't be coy. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You may stop repeating yourself whenever you wish. And I will stop being coy when you stop claiming your side of the war was directed by policy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. I did not "move war". An administrator properly admonishes the person doing wrong, not the person doing what an administrator should've done (and did eventually do), and protects the page to stop disruption. Please cease with these personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am engaging in personal attacks by assessing CBW's message as not being a personal attack? That sounds like a personal attack to me, please desist, lest you be blocked from editing. --kelapstick 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You implied that I was "move warring". That's a personal attack, as it is a pure fiction. Please do not repeat falsities. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I did not imply you were move warring, I explicitly said that you were move warring, because you were move warring. That isn't a personal attack. Now would you please cut the holier than thou BS, CambridgeBayWeather asked for an opinion and I gave it. Your disagreeing with it doesn't make it a personal attack. --kelapstick 01:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not "move warring". I do not "disagree" with you, for there is nothing to "disagree" about. There was no "move warring". I did not "war". I made a grand total of ONE revert of Dicklyon at that page yesterday. One. Over the months where he has tried the same tactics, I've implored him to file an RM. I've been forced to go to RM/TR multiple times, because he freezes article at his preferred title by modifying redirects. The only one waging a war is him. If he had simply filed an RM, as was appropriate, we would not be here now. The article would be at one title or another, consensus would be clear, and there would be none of this. Do not put any burden on me. I've not done anything. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is a continuation of problematic behavior by RGloucester (e.g., see previous block for behavior), especially the templating of an admin, the accusations of personal attacks when there are no actual ones, and the threat of blocking someone. This is on top of the refactoring of Dickyon's RPP (mentioned here) as well as other unbecoming behavior in this ANI. In my opinion, RGloucester needs to immediately stop this sort of behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed his "RPP request" because it wasn't an actual request. It was a disruptive attempt at mocking me. I filed this RPP request to stop the nonsense going on at that page. Dicklyon quickly followed with this, copying my wording. I removed his duplicate request here, specifying as a "nonsense request" because it was a nonsense, and because it was nothing other than retaliatory disruption. CBW decided to "decline" both requests here. However, note that Dicklyon continued with his retaliatory mocking, removing my request after CBW had declined it, restoring his own "request" without CBW's decline, and copying my edit summary. Please, scrutinise what I did here. It is clear that I'm not that one who was being disruptive. I "templated" the administrator because he threatened to block me without grounds, which was a form of chilling behaviour. The actual sequence of what happened makes it clear that I was not wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you are right that Dicklyon added the RPP after you did and it did seem to be in bad faith. I don't think you removing it was the most prudent given all the turmoil around that page, but it's at least somewhat understandable given the discussion above. I've struck that part from my original comment. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it bad faith to second his request but in favor of my own version instead of his? I was serious. Protecting the correct version seemed like a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "my version", it was the version that was stable for years and maintained in the Watts riots mass RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester, I started a new section because this was about my actions rather than yours or Dicklyon. If I had seen this edit that User:Dicklyon made then they too would have got a follow up warning. As to being templated I really don't care if people want to use templates or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Dicklyon is the origin of this whole calamity

Having read a comment by Randy Kyrn, I decided to do a little digging and see how the present lead of MOS:CAPS came to be. I was shocked at what I found. The sole justification used in many of Dicklyon's moves and elsewhere was added by him, was never put to a community RfC, and clearly had no consensus in the relevant but brief talk page discussion. I would remind editors that the WP:CONSENSUS policy requires a very strong consensus for changes community guidelines. How the heck can what's been going on here be tolerated? It seems as if subterfuge has been ongoing since at least 2011. Dicklyon has abused Misplaced Pages to promote his own preferences. He likes to claim that an item must be "100%" capitalised to remain that way, as that's how he defines "consistent". Guess what, he's the one that authored the sufficiently loose "consistent" phrasing, so as to ensure that he would always have success. This is gaming the system, if I've ever seen it. Please, tell me what there is to be done about this. These mass moves, carried out by him, are based in a sentence written by him, one that was never approved by community consensus. This pattern of behaviour shows right through. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the discussion that you linked, you'll see that I never advocated a 100% sources criterion. "Consistently" was clearly accepted as meaning significantly more than "majority", however, as should be clear there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not "clearly accepted" as anything. There was no community discussion on this major change to the guideline, nor any advertisement. Even in that individual discussion itself, ignoring community consensus, there was no clear consensus to implement the change, and no consensus as to what "consistently" means. In other words, it is just loose enough to allow you get away with whatever the heck you want, to the point where it might as well be a "100%" requirement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This was not a major change. The avoidance of unnecessary capitalization dates from 2007 or earlier. This minor change took out an odd section inserted in 2009 by permabanned editor Pmanderson, as the discussion link clearly shows. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a major change. The question is not whether we should avoid unnecessary capitalisation, as everyone would agree with that principle. The question is: "What is unnecessary?" Your change introduced the "consistency in sources" wording, which was never present before. In the Pmanderson 2009-era wording, the lead merely said to consult Misplaced Pages:Proper names. The addition of the "general principles" section took place here, and merely said to "follow common usage", which is a much more sensible and usual wording. Prior to that change, the page said nothing about "consistency in sources" or "common usage". In fact, the only guidance about what was a proper noun was "consult Misplaced Pages:Proper names". Your change completely changed the guideline, and also essentially depreciated another guideline, i.e. Misplaced Pages:Proper names, which is no longer even linked on the MOS:CAPS page. This is a travesty. It is pure gaming the system. The fact that no one has caught this until is amazing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a minor change, and a measured compromise between the anti-MOS types like Pmanderson who favored "follow the sources" and the more theoretical and principled types like Noetica who favored a more strict determination of what's a proper name. Noetica tried to change it later, in a time of relative turmoil, and found a backlash for it. Pmanderson fought him via a sock puppet after being banned, and htat didn't work out well for him. The "consistently capitalized in sources" concept was discussed on the talk page, before and after the change, and found no real objection. I think it was a pretty successful compromise, though I agree it has its problem in its ambiguity of interpretation by people like you who take 50% to be "consistently", which is clearly not how it was interpreted in the conversation at the time. Feel free to propose some other criterion for how to decide when caps are unnecessary, but do not accuse me of anything but implementing consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was the community RfC for this change? What uninvolved person assessed consensus on the talk page? I'd say that any of the administrators here who looked at that discussion would not've closed it in favour of this change. It clearly did not meet the level of consensus required to change a major guideline. It was not "measured", it was not a "compromise", it was not "minor". The fact that it is not "minor" is made apparent by sheer amount of unilateral moves you've made with solely that wording as your justification. You have gamed the system from then. You added a change without any kind of consensus, certainly not the kind required for a change to the guidelines, deprecated another guideline, and then went on to make tons and tons of unilateral page moves on the basis of that change over the course of years, using that wording as your sole justification. There was no consensus for this change, and it should be removed. The old version should be restored. There is no way that this can be viewed as anything other than an attack on the Misplaced Pages community and consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The actual calamity was started here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd rather the two of you either kept it on your user talk pages, or avoided each other. When it starts getting out into project space, it becomes disruptive. — Ched :  ?  11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. I posted it here so that all the project could see the travesty that has been caused by Dicklyon, since 2011. What will the community do to fix it? The evidence is plain to see. The system has been rigged. Please, administrators, fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester—I wish you would desist from this incessant campaign against Dicklyon. It is astounding how far you will go to discredit factual evidence concerning sources ... and then the meaning of the opening of MOSCAPS ... anything to "win" your argument. Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't an argument. I don't need one. The evidence is clear. The system has been rigged with no consensus changes to the MoS. I'm not the one mass moving pages to decapitalised/capitalised titles. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How is archiving of ANI done now?

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

Hey, we have 73 ANI threads, some of which were closed weeks ago. It doesn't seem like the bot is archiving anymore. What happened? Admittedly, the bot was often too quick on the trigger, but that could have been easily adjusted with parameters. Now it seems that archiving is strictly manual, optional, voluntary, and random/haphazard. Is there not a happy medium that can be achieved? it's a bit hard to peruse or navigate the page when there are so many (lengthy) closed threads on it. (By the way, I'd post this on the ANI Talk page, but -- oops! -- ANI doesn't even have a talk page. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt look like the bots archived successfully since 30 March. Might be worth reporting to bot owner. Nothing obvious sticks out maybe the archive size limit or something but I'm not familiar enough with the details to start button pushing. Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two sets of the archiving codes at the top of the page, one for MiszaBot and one for ClueBot III. Could that be messing things up? Ivanvector (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Lowercase sigmabot III (fka/aka MiszaBot) has been this page's archiver for as long as I can remember. Currently Malik Shabazz and possibly others are having the same problem with the bot: no archiving since March 31 – see User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III. The owner of the bot has not been on Misplaced Pages since February 26. Perhaps someone should email him? Could someone do that? Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK I've sent User talk:Σ an e-mail. I could try some manual archiving I suppose in the meantime. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the ClueBot III set should be removed, that might of been a forgotten attempt to fix the no archiving issue. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cluebot III has been there for at least a month (I didn't check earlier than that), so it's not something recently added. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just talking to Σ, and he said that Lowercase Sigmabot should be archiving the page within the next six hours or so. --kelapstick 01:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Same issue at WP:AN3RR too. Lugnuts 17:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Still no archiving, and it looks like Lowercase sigmabot III has only archived once in the last 24 hours or so. Did anyone ever get a hold of User:Σ?... --IJBall (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Liza Maza

Public figure has threatened to sue Misplaced Pages if nationality is misrepresented: . 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ive added some advice to their talkpage regarding contacting OTRS for assistance with what they see as incorrect information. Ive also advised they need to retract their legal threat and pointed them at the appropriate page as to why they need to do so. Hopefully they can get in touch and will retract the threat, just have to wait and see. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Another user has since warned her as well. Erpert 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CombatWombat42 has removed the unsourced blp information. Its also been put up for AFD. Still no retraction of the legal threat though. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Amortias:, appreciate the sympathetic yet informative message. It's really disappointing to see article subjects, who are clearly emotional about perceived misinformation in their articles, getting templated with threatening bold text and big red hand images for their legal threats, rather than having the system explained to them in a friendly and caring manner. Not just this example, but there seems to be a situation that occurs every week or two where people go in all guns blazing. Makes things even more difficult at the other end when they eventually reach out to us at OTRS. Just my $0.02... Daniel (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, templates have their place (and I'm a frequent template user) but sometimes it just needs something different. Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

She's made one edit and may never return to edit Misplaced Pages. Should her article really be AfD'd? It seems a bit retaliatory. Liz 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not nominate it as retaliatory. If you believe she is WP:notable and and can prove it please say so on the nomination. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If CombatWombat42 felt it was not suitable for the article to remain (no matter what drew them to it) afd seemes the appropriate outcome, if they had tagged it with speedy that would have been something else. It appears (to me at least) that they had a concern and they have sent it to the appropriate place to address it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I didn't see the AFD as retaliatory, it seemed to me an action motivated by a desire to protect the project, nothing more. WCM_email 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake then. My apologies. Liz 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have communicated with this editor at OTRS and explained our position on legal threats. The editor is engaged over some content they were unhappy about and I don't think the threat will be repeated. I suggest we let this one go through to the keeper. Also, the editor hasn't been notified of the discussion Flat Out let's discuss it 03:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• That is, first and foremost, an oversight on my part; mea culpa. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - there still wasn't one, so I have just added it for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've elaborated at the editor's talk page. Bold facing the lack of notification above made a point; simply asking me to follow through would have been even better. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I boldfaced it since it is a separate important point that shouldn't be missed and I note that after you acknowledged the oversight you still didn't inform the editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm just plain incompetent. Politely requesting that I, or any editor notify them, would have been great. Thank you again. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User:LizaMaza has asked for directions at OTRS as to how she can withdraw her legal threat, which I have given her. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

66.74.176.59

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

• 66.74.176.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William Sommer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (new account)

Hi

It appears that this user has long standing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour as well as making repeated claims of racism and bullying They also appear unwilling to assume good faith. Their talk page is awash with issues regarding these issues and it may be time to consider if they are competent to continue editing. Amortias (T)(C) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You send me a message about changing my user name and that is grounds for being "banished". I have been editing a string of articles on Mexico's football players for some time now in order that for the lay person being about to get a hang of the sport and that environment which also uses that Eropean style of dating. Also, what is to be daid about the all the spelling corrections that I have done. WP finds that offensive.

WP promotes from within and any view contrary to that is not apt to emerge especially if that is the course of advancement and acceptance. I do not expect for any one to like that but a fact is a fact and if someone wants to broach an issue unfortunately, there is sometimes a history of those that have not been courteous and gracious that new "advisors" need to be aware of when someone feels that they are being put upon. So is this the usual route of WP senior users to call for the forces to kick someone out? Does not seem like a logical approach.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

wp:battleground behavior would seem an appropriate description. .59 seems quick to take offense, quick to dish out offense and unwilling to take advice regarding WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. Jim1138 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for correcting the style. There seems to be a lack of understanding that if previous contributors approached something in a rather caustic way that when others without taking the effort to show that they were of a different tone did not do so it all becomes one big blob. If that is what you term unwilling then all you are doing is bullying as a group instead of coming across as different people. Especially for those coming into the scene in later stages it can appear so. Such as those who deem that I should have a user name other than my IP. I am fine with an IP and WP allows it. There is no need to continually bombard any one especially if all that it takes is a review of that person's TP.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A few of .59's comments

• ClairWalzer
• Camelbinky
• Jamie Tubers
• Cuprum17
• Famartin
• Materialscientist
• Nyttend
• Cyfal
• talk:Hopewell, NJ

Jim1138 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND exemplifies this user's behavior to others. I believe the counter-allegations of disrespectful treatment are without foundation. Since starting editing in September last year, 66.74.176.59 has repeatedly called anyone advising more careful editing of a "knee-jerk reaction" (as above), no matter how diplomatic and polite their approach.

Some examples of this:

• 13/9/14 Jamie Tubers
• 26/10/14 Famartin
• 26/10/14
• 7/12/14 Altairisfar
• 21/12/14 Cyfal
• 21/12/14 Camelbinky
• 22/2/15 Nicknack009
• 25/2/15 - me
• 1/4/15
• 2/4/15
• 2/4/15
• 2/4/15 Moosehadley
• 2/4/15

ClaireWalzer (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that most of our editors are IP editors, and that most of them are WP:Wikignomes, and not vandals. That said, this editor shows a concerning persecution complex.

The IP editor likes to claim that they're bullied for not having a username. However, the only discussion of usernames I see on the IP's talk page as of 19:05 EST 6 Apr 2015 are:

• bracketbot mentioning that IP addresses are used to identify users without usernames,
• the IP editor fussing at an an editor who left the IP editor an award (WP:CIR and WP:AGF?)
• an apology and admission of error two months ago (which the IP rejected as "vial" and responded to with Reductio ad Hitlerums and profanity) (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA)
• the IP editor once again fussing at another editor who thanked the IP for helping (WP:CIR and WP:AGF?)
• the IP editor claiming that they've "continually been lectured" (despite little-to-no evidence)
• the IP editor asking users who never mentioned usernames to quit sending (non-existent) messages telling him to change his username (paranoid much?)

Without looking into the other incidents, the talk page alone shows we've got an editor who is crying wolf whenever they need to communicate like an adult.

Looking at this page, I see that they are selectively quoting out of context, probably out of paranoid rage instead of dishonesty, but the end result is the same. Given that multiple editors have asked about the IP editor's language skills, that seems to be a legitimate concern and not racism. We have editors of various colors. I have no idea what ethnicity the IP editor belongs to. I do see some imperfect English, and it could be from a variety of backgrounds.

This edit is just plain hypocritical.

This edit would be just ironic ('don't treat me like a child,' well, don't throw tantrums), except for the line "No need to respond even if it is just an apology" -- This line shows a clear unwillingness to communicate with others, which is the basis for collaboration.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My advice, @59, is that no one is going to wade through your walls of text. ANI demands that you are brief, to the point, and address the concerns that are brought up against you.

I'm not saying your point of view is right or wrong. Just that it is the very, very wrong approach to reconciling differences and disputes on a noticeboard. It's a place for conciseness and diffs, not extended diatribes, however heartfelt they might be. Liz 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to go through life being known for only the good yothink you have done then do not become part of the problem and state in the public record: A Quest For Knowledge "A Quest For Knowledge .......I reverted his (Redacted) move and added a citation showing the problem with Curry's lack of understanding of statistics in that regard. jps (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" 66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The interesting point is that I was not even looking for that and only accidentally rolled upon it toward the bottom of the board. That's persecution or just dumb luck?66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)66.74: You really need to start discussing matters like a civil adult or an administrator will be completely justified in blocking you.

We're not even going to expect you to apologize, but you need to at least claim that you're going to try to be civil from now on.

Even if you were wronged (which you've failed to provide good evidence for), claiming that as supposed justification for responding inappropriately is really only an admission to lacking self-control. Self-control, civility, and the constant assumption of good-faith are necessary to edit here. Walls of text are not needed. Trying to blame other editors for your atrocious language is not needed. Accusations that lack evidence are not needed. The paranoid fantasies of persecution are not needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The IPs post is WP:TLDR.

I see that various editors have tried to suggest reasonably that the IP's limited command of English is problematic, and the IP has replied with the personal attack of calling some of them racists (when, of course, we have no idea what is the race of the human behind the IP address). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block (no longer than 48 hours) for the personal attacks of allegations of racism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block (don't care about length) if he does not at acknowledge that he could have done better to assume good faith and shown more self-control, and at least claim that he'll try to do better. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right, Ian, accusations of paranoia are unneeded since they never existed. Was Martin Luther ever repentant? Henry was 5 times after the first one failed. When I was younger my relatives took me to the parish to have me do this five points of blessed oils each day. It did not work. It did not work on the children of my next door neighbor as well and all three died from overdoses.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Any ways, I am waiting for that mass of silent IP administrators to weigh in on the matter instead of just relying on non-IP user name administrators since there are so many of them. I will say that I am willing not to hold up the mirror to show Wm Sommers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

When I last checked we don't have any "IP administrators". What we do have is administrators who will block editors for personal attacks amongst other things. To avoid joining the list of blocked editors, I suggest that you apologise for the personal attacks and curb your future comments. Thanks,  Philg88  05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block if the user doesn't acknowledge and remedy inappropriate behavior. User's behavior is not consistent with editing norms, I have questions about his general competence, and I'm starting to pick up a trolling vibe. His talk page was on my watchlist for a note I'd left him in late February. That conversation seemed to go fine. On April 2, I noticed another editor had warned him for vandalism and IP 66.74.176.59 protested. I took a look and saw that both editors had made mistakes. I intervened and attempted to bring a quick and amicable solution. The warning editor struck through his erroneous warning, but that wasn't good enough for the IP, who, rather than assuming a good faith mistake, thought it best to chastise the warning editor. After I pointed out the inappropriateness of that, I became the focus of a rant. His more recent edits have elevated to accusations of racism toward anyone who criticizes his English skills, which is totally presumptuous given that he is anonymous just as we are anonymous, and it's also absurd considering there is a clear problem with his English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've clarified my support for a block, because blocks aren't intended to be punitive. But if user doesn't acknowledge that his combative behavior is inappropriate or come up with a plan to improve his editing, I'm not sure what else can be done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. WP:NOTHERE is an understatement. Erpert 06:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block I have interacted with IP 66.74.176.59 several times starting in February. There are English competence issues, which IP 66.74.176.59 simply won't acknowledge. The absolutely unjustified accusations of racism are deeply concerning. No amount of advice from me or anyone else has been heeded, so I see no alternative at this point. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block I feel a bit new to weigh in on blocking matters, but this user appears to have unlimited stamina for carrying out the most draining, time-wasting and baroquely convoluted disputes. 24 or 48 hours of disengagement may allow the kettle to get off the boil. Elmidae (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

...that's a full screen of unbroken text right there. Who do you think is going to wade through that kind of rant? Please look at WP:TLDR. Consider that if you can't make your point with less verbiage, you may not have as much of one as you thought. Elmidae (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume that rant would not be an acceptably neutral word in a WP article except for that article on "Rant" or a quoted statement. I assume that you are unknowing in that when you go to edit how things were typed into discernable para's you will see it as such.

Congratulations, now it's two screen's worth. The point being that it's actually difficult to make out what your point is in this allusive song and dance (you certainly lost me). Elmidae (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Voila, para's! With wide white borders.William Sommer (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So Elmidae, are you more concerned about not wanting to take the time and effort with WP technology in order for you to understand or just go on a character assassination of the messenger? Let me assume in this environment of anonymity that you are the more experienced with WP to know how and where it is that you can come to a non-character assassination in this filing? Or is that just WP editor style in action?66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but the previous was just another rant?66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And Cyphoidbomb, it is perfectly fine with you and WP policy to let stand statements purported to be fact that are not based on what "ClaireWalzer" is lacking, saying that I purportedly a non-English native language speaker should stay away from the Eng/Am. WP? "ClaireWalzer" can base the statement on nothing of fact because that contributor knows nothing about that trait of myself. So what, is WP now suppose to be reasoned with assumptions that can only be explained as fundamentally unsupported statements? Or is pulling in the reigns more important for you and WP? Again, no one wants to be perceived as racist but statements purporting to be fact are reached by prejudices even if that is not what they intended; nevertheless wrote:

"limit yourself to editing Misplaced Pages in your own language".66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, IP66, you're William Sommer, no? Can you please stick to one--either the IP address or the account? Dumb admins like me find this hard to follow. Also, less is more. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 66.74.176.59 / William Sommer I will attempt to clarify our exchange in context once more, with a link to the edit in question. By your standard of English and level of maturity I was referring specifically to this sentence (original punctuation & spelling used below) and questioning its appropriacy and correctness as an edit summary in an encyclopedia. I can only apologize if my comment still distresses you terribly, but it is not and never was a racist attack:

(w/o aged under 26 can mean that someone is under a the # 26 rather of particular age; if sum1 writes "18" on piece of paper & stands on it they can say they r of legal age or over 18)

I did not bring this complaint to ANI, and I am unsure as to why I continue to upset you, nor why you continue to allege racist intent on my part. ClaireWalzer (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The account that appears to have been created by the IP editor is still running through articles changing the format of dates to their prefered preference. Amortias (T)(C) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also another IP user that is often online simultaneously or overlapping with this user. The main characteristics in common with this user are times online, a lack of edit summaries and a large number of extremely rapid edits, although this other user never responds to any comment on their talk page. I think this qualifies as a potential WP:SOCK. Is this the appropriate place to raise that? ClaireWalzer (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. The user name was just registered yesterday; (Redacted)! Due diligence would do you some favor.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Having had enough of personal attacks being issued I've gone through and redacted the ones I could find. If anyone feels I've overstepped please feel free to revert. Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One of your (Redacted) was a direct lift from another filing on the board to show that these types of personal attacks seem to be coming even from administrators.William Sommer (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

if you had there would have been no misting that similar articles have been reviewed and the user name has a statement at the top about contacting for IP user changes. (Redacted). If I wanted to ber secretive would it not have been to my advantage to have logged out of the new account?William Sommer (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And before you have another knee jerk reaction, I did just post a message while not logged in. I guess the cat is out of the bag?William Sommer (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Enough TL;DR from 66./William, can we just block him already?

It's clear 66.74.176.59/William Sommer has no interest in assuming good faith, insists on tit-for-tat whenever he can complain, but refuses to consider the possibility of accepting responsibility for his own poor language skills and atrocious incivility. His language skills wouldn't be an issue if he was cooperative. His language skills do not excuse his hypocritical incivility. Nothing unnecessarily drawing the newer user User:ClaireWalzer into this pointless Wikidrama.

The following users have explicitly expressed support for a block: User:Robert McClenon, User:Cyphoidbomb, User:I_am_One_of_Many, and of course myself. User:Amortias appears at least open to a block. User:Jim1138 and everyone else have noted problematic behavior. I have no prior involvement with this user, and I'm under the impression . This isn't a vote, but we have suggested it due to their continued utter failure to comprehend WP:AGF or WP:NPA. 66./William has made no indication that they care to improve, and seems to have no capacity to learn from criticism. I'd be more willing to entertain a discussion to see if this might go anywhere, but 66./William's massive walls of text are disruptively making this already full page unnecessarily long.

The only question is the matter of length, but it is agreed that up to 48 hours is no problem. That would at least allow us to peacefully discuss if the block is going to be longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that you really do appear to want to contribute to Misplaced Pages and yet you are unwilling to accept criticism and you accuse others of bias. If you are blocked, the point is not to punish or bully you, but to give you time to stop and think about your behavior on Misplaced Pages. I feel very confident in saying that everyone here would love to see you contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, but that means taking advice and playing nice. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You are to be commended for attempting to broker a deal concerning this issue but there are three things that I value when it comes to making decisions in life. Before that, let me comment that it is interesting that the chief protagonist of being blocked is now "hiding" my comments alone. Coercion: contributors call attention to all what has been done wrong on WP in what can be characterized as an attempt to have me blocked then there are comments about things would be fine if there was not this perceived recalcitrant stance. I do not take kindly to be coerced into a resolution; no one should ever be subjected to that treatment. Deception: the now-chief protagonist to block me originally seemed to offer that a not more than 48 hour block be imposed then later clarified that statement to include in order to remove me from the discussion. For what, an unlimited free for all can take place without responding comment? I do not take kindly to being deceived. Injurious: someone has made a statement that they attempt to distance themselves and seems unable to at least giving it consideration. I do not take kindly to being inured even if all is that it is a statement purporting to be fact.

I am lead to believe that the "hiding" of my comments are presumably for decreasing the length of this filing but then the description only goes to that category of petrol on the fire. This contributor has already shown themselves to less than genuine in spirit. It might as well be changed the heading for this filing "The permanent blocking of ......"William Sommer (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Give people enough time and this is bound to be found:— Preceding unsigned comment added by William_Sommer (talk • contribs)

I've removed the unnecessary and disruptive copy-paste. Just link to discussions. Do you have a point, or are you just looking to engage in more tit-for-tat instead of accepting responsibility for your incivility and harassment? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:ClaireWalzers talk page is clearly a discussion about wrangling up the forces in an effort to thwart what has become a thorn in your side and is it common for contributors to lock their page then when the submit link is hit that it directs to the WP Guidelines on Requesting a Locked Page?William Sommer (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. You do realize that talk pages aren't exactly backroom dealings, right? And what are you even rambling about with that stuff about locked pages? Were you trying to leave me a message or something? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This brings to mind the scene from Ironclad when the duchess is told by her maid that her lady is paying much attention to that which it does not matter to her. And in order to save you time to review, I believe I might have edited a apart which you can then compare with the NY contributor that speculation seems to be around that we might be the same. We are not although at times I am in NYC on business and personal matters.William Sommer (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any point, or is responding to you just feeding a troll? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It all speaks for itself which according to your cohorts is being encouraged except you did respond counter to what was suggested. Me against WP is not a case of mistaken assumption. But I am not saying oh poor li'l ole me and feigning non-responsibility. I think WP can weather this bump on my way to you being the anointed leader of getting me permanently banned. Is not that your goal? Again, a lot of attention for a nothing that you hope is soon off the scene. I cannot see this coming to an amiable or useful conclusion even if that is only your original proposal of a up to "48" only block yet then let the cat out of the bag and clarify that it probably was only a ploy to clear the way for a permanent block. True spirit of WP community.William Sommer (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you hadn't started off and continued being totally hostile to everyone (even people who thanked you and awarded you!), you wouldn't be in this situation. Any prediction as to whether you'll be blocked or banned is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and entirely your fault. There'd be no need to ban you if you would just:

• accept responsibility for being an uncivil and hostile jerk to everyone,
• quit trying to pin any stupid little thing you can find on anyone else, and
• indicate that you hoped to do better job with civility, self-control, and assuming good faith.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a veiled apology that you have been going about this in the most unproductive way.William Sommer (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done nothing to you requiring an apology. You've only behaved in ways that require an apology. That you think I'm apologizing leaves me convinced that you're either trolling (assuming the mental stability to edit) or are cripplingly out of touch with reality (assuming good faith). I can no longer simultaneously assume both good faith and competence from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you are not in a conciliatory frame of mind being so quick to jump to conclusions. You cannot make characterizations of my posts as being rants and make every effort to be the catalyst of an effort to have me banned so that the group can decide my fate without my participation and then expect a 360 to be taken as serious. Do not expect a "Lazarus of Bethany" if you shot a bullet killing someone and then expect for the dead to be revived as if snapping your fingers. Diplomatic history should point that out for even the best of national relations.William Sommer (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support block the length of time these issues have been going on for, the constant accusations and personal attacks and repeatedly failing to assume good faith, remain civil or follow guidance doesn't leave me with any confidence that they can change their ways. I think we have run out of options.Amortias (T)(C) 11:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Has everyone -- except for William Sommer/66. -- had their say? If not, as an uninvolved Admin who just happened to be lurking here, I'm prepared to act. (And what I'm prepared to do should be obvious.) - llywrch (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've said and done all I can do in this matter, so please feel free to act. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can tackle the ip at the same time it seems fairly static. Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've blocked William Sommer for 48 hours. (My instinct tells me an indef block would be more appropriate, but 48 hours was the only figure thrown out. Anyway, if he returns & continues his problematic behavior, he can be blocked again.) The TL;DR version of reason for blocking is a cut-&-dry case of WP:BATTLEFIELD & possible competence concerns. The longer version for his blocking is...well, read this thread: having 5 rants collapsed says a lot in itself. I'm also blocking the related IP address for three months to prevent socking; I can't indefinitely block it because it might be a shared IP. I think that closes this thread. -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nary a source to be found

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

JetsAndYankees4Life (talk · contribs)

Many of the account's numerous edits appear credible, but their enthusiasm is such that, despite several notices, there's no concern with providing sources. It's designed to leave other editors the chore of mopping up and finding cites in their wake. Recent edits also include multiple additions of major league players' performances in the first game of the new season, very WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that WP encouraged sagas? Otherwise, what would you rather confront, the wakes of flotsam or the tidal waves?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning issued. There's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to a final warning for vandalism: repeatedly failing to cite sources is indeed a good reason for blocking. Especially in this case; Jets-etc. requested protection because unsourced content was being added to articles. This is not someone who's clueless about our policies. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I for this is ridiculously excessive. This is a new and zealous editor who we should be reaching out to directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Their choosing to ignore Muboshgu's notice last week, and response to my posting yesterday , coupled with a persistence in adding unsourced and sometimes trivial content, suggested a user who is as yet uninterested in editing with respect to policy. Five or ten such edits, prior to engagement with other editors, is not unusual. This looked to be more problematic. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess an ANI is a good place to state that it seems pretty obvious to me that is user is almost certainly a sock of PrivateMasterHD/EternalFloette.--Yankees10 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yankees10. I'm not familiar enough with the histories of sports articles to have sussed out a possible sock, but I did suspect this was not a new editor. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Admins, before you take action, I would like to formally explain that I've been adding what's been happening on various sports articles but these guys over here claim that it's unsourced despite me being correct over the current events. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what's sourced or what's unsourced and I don't know if it has to do with adding references. No ones trying to have a fit here, but I just want to explain this situation immediately so we can clear things out here. Thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you add information to an article it needs to be backed up by a reliable source if you are unable to confirm what you plan on adding then it should not be included as we are required to back up our edits. If you are unsure if a source is reliable you should take it to this page to discuss. If you are unsure how to use references see this page. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Amortias. Now I'm starting to learn from my miscues and I'm starting to insert references that cite sources for the articles that I went too early on. But the only thing that I feel concerned about is these guys making complaints about me. I think everything looks clear now, so once again, thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Methinks the editor is much smarter and a lot more experienced in Misplaced Pages than the above posting lets on. This is not the footprint of a newbie, as they not only posted a request for multiple page protections, but appear to have been familiar with the need for sources: . 32.216.140.250 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You and Yankees10 do have a good point there about this being a potential sock. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User found religion, and has begun adding sources, after the subject of sockpuppets came up. User:Yankees10, if you're pretty certain about this, an SPI might be in order. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on a combination of technical and behavioural evidence I've blocked JetsAndYankees4Life as a sock of PrivateMasterHD.--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

50.101.237.232

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

Series of 9 racial page vandalisms in the space of an hour swapping Indian and Pakistani around. 50.101.237.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stoke-on-Trent&diff=prev&oldid=655268127   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reading,_Berkshire&diff=prev&oldid=655267814   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=City_of_Preston,_Lancashire&diff=prev&oldid=655267682   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Burnley&diff=prev&oldid=655265941   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=North_West_England&diff=prev&oldid=655265026   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=North_West_England&diff=prev&oldid=655263629 &nbsp, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=West_Midlands_(region)&diff=prev&oldid=655262284   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Birmingham&diff=prev&oldid=655261757   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manchester&diff=prev&oldid=655261122

WatcherZero (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take these to AIV. Thanks, Nakon 03:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@WatcherZero: They made anothersimilar edit, so I reverted it and blocked them. Graham87 07:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

LTA vandal targeting me

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

I recently wrote up a long-term vandal case page at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal, and now I have a special opponent at 61.156.3.166, which is a recently reported spam IP from China, just the type of compromised IP address this person likes to use (open proxies, colocation sites, etc.) This person keeps reverting my good faith work at Halestorm, where I think it would be wise to get some temporary protection added.

Perhaps it is pertinent to this case that I recently had a visit from 145.116.19.100 which is also a recently reported spam IP, this time from the Netherlands. The Netherlands IP issued me a legal threat with regard to another LTA case page I drew up.

I get the sense that the Velenje vandal is targeting me for tracking down his behavior and making it easier for people to revert his work. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

All my reverts have been explained in my edit summaries. What Binksternet calls "reverting my good faith work" is actually reverting of his disruptive edits, just see what changes he had actually made before I have reverted them. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think you explained in the summaries, but your last summary, written in your third revert and after the final warning, calls the edits of your opponent "vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM, since one more instance of calling this vandalism will get your IP blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I called my last revert vandalism because Binksternet kept removing content with his only first edit summary being that he only removed tags. Compare the edits before you accuse me. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did compare the edits before writing this warning, and you apparently failed to read WP:VANDALISM as I suggested.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing unexplained changes whith completely different explanation in edit summary is what I called vandalism, which it clearly is. 61.156.3.166 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So, Mr. IP editor, you have nothing to say about your IP being a recently reported spam site from China, nothing to say about your unusual interest in the Salem TV show which is one of the few articles targeted by the Velenje vandal, and you have nothing to say about your edit summary comment about me, "typical of this editor", which was only the second interaction that your IP had with me, making it look very much like you have a previous history with me, that you somehow resolved to oppose me. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your main accusation makes no sense, here is why. Can you prove that it is not you using this "spam IP"? 61.156.3.166 (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the stupidest rebuttals I have ever seen. Can we get it memorialized somewhere as grounds for CIR blocks? Could we extend the block since the IP is static and a "Recently reported forum spam source"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's quite breathtaking, Ian.thomson, but perhaps too unique for its own essay. Block extended to 3 months, as nothing constructive is to be expected from this spam site. Compare the first block in December 2014 which was for 60 days. I've semi'd Halestorm for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

User:Buckleburyman

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

User:Buckleburyman continues to add material on someone called Sylvia Park to the notable people section of the Koreans in the United Kingdom article, despite the deletion of the article on her because of her lack of notability. I have explained (see here and here) to Buckleburyman that if he wants to contest the deletion, the place to do so is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, but instead he insists on recreating the article, posting the material at Koreans in the United Kingdom, and has now launched a botched attempt to have James Morrison (golfer) deleted (presumably in retaliation, as I created that article). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Nthep and NeilN for dealing with the incomplete AFD and the repeated addition of the material on Sylvia Park. I could have done this myself, but wasn't completely sure about how to deal with the AFD notice, and don't want to get into an escalating personal dispute with Buckleburyman. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've warned the user strongly against any further recreation of the deleted article as well as further retaliation against you, Larry. Blocking might have been appropriate, but I'm strenuously assuming good faith that they didn't realize the same deleted article with a different title wouldn't do either. And that they thought anybody could appropriately AfD anything. Well... yeah, that's assuming a lot of good faith. Still, there it is. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I'll report back if any more disruptive behaviour occurs. It may be that some sort of conflict of interest exists (see this), which would explain the repeated attempts to introduce the material on Park. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest seems highly likely. I sometimes think we're too polite about this stuff. "Oh, oh, who could it possibly be?" Feel free to report directly on my page if I'm around. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

An IP now appears to have taken up the addition of material on Park. Could you take a look, Bishonen? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked, account warned, again, but I'm kind of getting tired of them. The next time they figure out yet another policy to violate, they won't get yet another warning. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

And now Buckleburyman is back reverting. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're kidding. No, you're not. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

Abusing images policy and other disruption

I need help in dealing with this disruptive multiple account abuser, User:StanTheMan (now using User:StanTheMan87 and User:StanMan87). He's repeatedely removing tag that says "Please do not remove this tag." , . I nominated that image because it is clearly not a unique historic image but an image of a living person who is believed to be in Pakistan. . Therefore, how is it possible that a free image of him cannot be created? We are living in 2015 when every person carries a cell phone that shoots photos, and I'm sure each of his followers carry a cell phone. StanTheMan87 is corruptly putting the same image in multiple Misplaced Pages articles , when he knows the tag says "Other use of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." This shows that he's not here to contribut but for other purposes.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, User:StanTheMan isn't me. My only accounts are this one (User:StanTheMan87) and a previous account (User:StanMan87) which stated that the two accounts were the same person. This is just an attempt by Krzyhorse22 to link me to sock puppetry. Run an investigation into this account, my other account and User:StanTheMan if an admin wishes it. This isn't the first time that this user has accused me of sock puppetry before.

The tag is being removed, becuase this same issue arose in September 2014, when the same editor wanted it deleted. The consensus reached was that the current license was permissible, and that the image will stay on Misplaced Pages under this non-free fair use license . No new argument is being added here for the removal of the image. There's no new justification for it. Per WP:CON, this whole argument is invalid.

No free image of the individual can be obtained becuase he hasn't been photographed recently. It is no secret that this individual is camera shy, pertaining to the strict Islamic belief held by some Muslims that no living thing can be captured on film. The Taliban placed restrictions on the usage of recording equipment during their rule, despite some exceptions. This photo is a very rare anomaly, an exception, with multiple sources proving this. In this sense, it is very, very unique and of historical relevance. It isn't even known if the individual is truly alive, despite what Taliban propaganda says. They have an agenda to keep the idea this man represents to their movement alive at all costs. Anyhow, I will not have this present debate twisted into how this image is a fake becuase of what I have written previously about no cameras allowed in Afghanistan during Taliban rule. The image shows who it says it shows according to highly regarded sources: ,,,. That's final.

The image is being used in articles of relevance, namely the subjects article, the article on Afghan heads of state, and the ethnic group to which this individual belongs to. Fair use rationales are in use for each one, this hardly consists of a breach on Misplaced Pages's Fair use policy. It doesn't state that the image can be limited to only one article, otherwise WP wouldn't allow you to use multiple Fair use rationale templates. And I can't even find the explicit wording regarding "Use on only one article".

Finally, my contributions have been for the better on this Encyclopedia. I have no POV to push, and when I do express a personal opinion, it's always on a users page, or the article talk page and never within an article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea that it's replaceable is frankly farcical. If the CIA can't find him, we probably can't either. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Its interesting that I should find my way to this thread as I was the editor on the receiving end of the long text previously mentioned. All in all, while clearly tendentious, I found it quite enlightening of a religion that clearly has open ends towards practices that many societies would clearly define as human rights abuse. Despite an approach that seems to me to be highly tendentious I have found StanTheMan87 to be straightforward, from what I have seen, in approach.

The last edit that I remember from StanTheMan87 was in response to an enquiry from an IP address (Special:Contributions/193.87.99.186), that has only added to Misplaced Pages on this one occasion, and asked the question on the ISIL talk page, "I suspect , IS has something like official website , probably operated as TOR hidden service to prevent censorship. Knows anyone the address ?" Remembering that this is a website that has had previous incarnations that have been repeatedly taken down by international consensus, StanTheMan87 was the editor to place reference on the talk page .

I have just had a cursory look at Special:Contributions/StanTheMan87 and jumped into a long recent edit at: Revision as of 13:23, 7 April 2015. Here I found the text: "The Faith Campaign allowed Sunni mosques more freedom in practicing religious ceremonies and rites, which reduced substantially the opposition to the regime among Sunni Islamists." I am very concerned that this, again, maybe symptomatic of an apologetics based practice on behalf of whichever form of Sunni Islamism or perhaps Salafism that may be being followed. I would like to know that any edits like these are being balanced with content in regard to issues like effects the freedoms of women or members of any LGBT community or any Shias, Sufis, or Christians that may have been effected by the Sunni mosques having extended freedoms. I have seen nothing to indicate that StanTheMan87 is not a purely or largely tendentious editor without any priority for the building of an NPOV encyclopedia.

I say this with no axe to grind. Despite being the editor that was instrumental in adding the reference to Islamic extremism I am also the main editor that is advocating on this page on behalf of an editor for whom one of the major accusations was the removal of this reference. In comparison I think that StanTheMan87 comes across as very driven in his agenda. GregKaye 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Admins have established that StanTheMan is User:TheMadTim, who I see behaving and writing identical to StanTheMan and StanTheMan87. Just compare this and this with this. Not to mention the identical way of making sock names, but I also noticed certain words used by TheMadTim and StanTheMan87.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff or a link where "Admins have established" that? 24.236.232.136 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving away your IP address. That will make it much easier to check for socks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, I though the tagger (KK2) was an admin, minor error, but looking at TheMadTim's and StanTheMan's contributes , we can establish both being the same, especially the following. , , , , . The "dude" being excessively used is only a cover up.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember using foul language at all on Misplaced Pages, nor do I use the term 'Dude'. It seems the only reason to believe that this account is the same as User:StanTheMan is due to the similar username and the fact that we both stated that we'd stop editing Misplaced Pages at some point in time. Why don't you also add that we both use the English language, and we both use the word 'and' and whatnot? So trivial. Again, this isn't the first time I have been alleged of being a sock puppet by Krzyhorse22. User:DocumentError and I were both accused of being the same person by Krzyhorse22. If doubts still persist into my genuineness, then I welcome a sock puppet investigation to be conducted on this account to quell the allegations. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DocumentError claimed that he comes from Iran , it is now indef-blocked for disruptive editing. DocumentError always appeared everywhere defending you. Your edits indicate that you're connected to Iran. You stated: "I'm out of the motha fucking pedia, bitches." That reveals your real you. There is no doubt in my mind that you have been socking, edit-warring, and POV-pushing for many years. I'm not that concerned about you using multiple names in the past, you may act like Yosemite Sam all you want but I and others can see what you're upto. The problem right now (here) is you're abusing images license policy, this is not only a Misplaced Pages issue but also could involve U.S. federal law. When it comes to federal law, there is no jurisdiction, and courts have now ruled that internet activities are permissible evidence. The point is we're not allowed to use images that legally belong to someone who hasn't given us explicit permission.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can write whatever I wish on my Misplaced Pages talk page. The point I was making was that I have never used foul language in a pejorative context, as in while communicating with another editor, unlike you . You have also stated some bizarre things, such as when you claimed you contacted the director of the CIA, John O. Brennan in order to support your contention. The image licencing policy issue was solved last year with a clear consensus reached. This discussion is pointless. Oh, and if you don't mind me asking, how is the CIA director these days Krzyhorse22? StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous nomination was obviously wrongly conducted, but besides that it allowed the image for only one article , which is normal, and after that you (using 2 different names) added 2 more rationals and used the image in 2 other articles. I was very much expecting what you did since last year. No, you cannot write whatever you wish. My bizarre things are jokes only the intelligence community can understand.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know how relevant the sock puppet issue is. The main issues are disruption as mentioned, tendetious editing and whether StanTheMan87 is here for purposes to advocate for a religious POV. (StanMan87 is not active and if this was StanTheMan87 then it might be easy for both accounts to be activated and used. "stan the man", "stan man" and "stantheman" all get quite high hit on Google. See also Stan the Man (disambiguation) with Stan Musial, American baseball player receiving a redirect from Stan the Man). GregKaye 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dorothy Comingore

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

I am unsure of what to do with this, but Dorothy Comingore has placed a an "Ad" for "Citizens Against Revenge Porn (CARP)"(References: 1, 2) on MyEx.com. I did not believe that it fit on the article, and did tell them I support their cause but I did believe it didn't fit on the article properly. Unfortunately it didn't result in just a revert, but a written threat of a edit war . One user has already been blocked for posting this on the article in question, and I supposed it wasn't allowed, but I do know edit warring is not allowed. As of for right now, I am not editing the page, just to be on the safe side.
Side note: I am unsure how to use the {{Pagelinks}} and {{Userlinks}} templates, but have provided possible substitution for them. If this is still not acceptable, please let me know on my talk page and I will fix it ASAP. Félix Wolf (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted a warning about edit warring to their talk page; but based on behavioral evidence, this appears to either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Susan Alexander Kane (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked Mar 26th for the same behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: the user has opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#MyEx.com to address the article and link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I originally reverted this editor's edit at Revenge Porn because it appears that it is a brand new account, and they are using WP:PRIMARY sourcing (not secondary), appear to be advertising a Facebook group as well as explaining how to do something which is not what Misplaced Pages is for. If they cannot rectify this behavior, I support a block. Tutelary (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A Facebook page with just 42 "likes", no link to a website, no stated data protection policy... Definitely WP:NOTHOWTO and not a suitable EL. Keri (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Dorothy Comingore as a  Confirmed sock of Susan Alexander Kane.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Justin Beiber page vandalized, but it's protected so I can't revert

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Justin_Bieber&diff=655343847&oldid=655311928

As you can see, the most recent two edits contain only vandalism. jag426 (talk) 15:34, 07 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorous at it again

Blocked 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Warned, reported at ANI, blocked and still at it. , , --NeilN 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked over at WP:AIV for vandalism within one day of release of block. Amortias (T)(C) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is incorrect. His last block expired over a month ago. Really, he should be indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the block he was blocked for edit warring and BLP violations - misread the previous block when looking at it prior to reporitng it so the bad falls here on that one. Will ping SarekOfVulcan as they imposed the block so they can see this as well. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

ArcangelLaMarivilla

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

I think that editor and the IP are the same person, as they both seem to think that blanking the problem will make it go away. (See: their talk page histories.) They have been warned more than enough times that removing AfD templates is not acceptable, yet they keep doing that, and remove the warnings from their talk page which proves that they've seen those. They did this on Start/End (at least twice (linking to talk page warnings since the page is deleted)), and also used blanking on the AfD page itself, twice (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Start/End history). The article was eventually deleted, but they restored it. (Currently tagged for speedy, may get deleted soon.) Today they removed the AfD tag from The Death Card, twice.

The IP removed a PROD tag from Catharsis (Sworn In EP) today; removing PROD tags is allowed but it's another example of how they (possibly) use the IP for editing while logged out and use blanking instead of communication in an effort to protect articles about musical recordings. (All the articles mentioned here are albums by a metalcore band.)

(I would have just reported them at WP:AIAV but I'm not sure if the problem is obvious enough to not need an explanation.) — Jeraphine Gryphon  19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

To report potential sockpuppetry, report it to WP:SPI (even though they won't publicly connect an IP to an account) and for the removal of the AfD template, it absolutely qualifies under vandalism and I would report it if you have not. For the IP removing the PROD, it's only a suspicion which could be correct but I've watchlisted that page just in case any more shenanigans show up. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Leave me alone, all I am doing is helping bands get their article and that's it. Jerphine is a bully :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcangelLaMarivilla (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When I created this post here, I actually wondered to myself if you would try to blank it from here, and you actually did. How have you not learned by now that it doesn't work? I have no idea how you're not blocked yet. FYI I actually spent my time looking for references and helping with the band's main article (see article history) and I have no interest in their kind of music. That's how you help, you do research to find references or to find sources that can prove the notability of an article's topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon  18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A serious incident indeed

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

I just got an obscene message about what can only be described as a curious anatomical tautology. What should I do? 217.43.5.204 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? People have only put vandalism warnings on your talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon  19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Communication was off wiki but no doubt wikipedia related (this is clearer if you know what the communication was). 217.43.5.204 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Theres limitations on what can be done about off-wiki activity unless it can be explicitly linked to an editor here. Its difficult to see whats gone on without the information available to us which is what makes off-wiki issues difficult to deal with here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It would perhaps be prudent of me to point out that the OP is in possession of what one might describe as a "dark member of excessive girth" 81.101.142.111 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, the one recent edit by the OP was vandalism, so I'm closing this as trolling. BMK (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The constant violation of NPOV

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

According the several user talk page discussions, and the recent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article, the users Anosola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and lately especially Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constantly support the violation of the NPOV principles, ignore my warnings about the NPOV principles violation, intentionally avoid to discuss the main issue and the NPOV violation. I lost my patience and wasted my time to make them understand how Misplaced Pages works. I can not anymore.--Crovata (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a related discussion: "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• And another one: "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crovata reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban from all Misplaced Pages-related pages for Chealer

Moving to WP:AN, since this belongs over there. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:DONTLIKEIT issues with SchroCat

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

See also WP:AN3#User:SchroCat reported by User:Agnosticaphid (Result: ) and Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Edit warring. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. DONTLIKEIT Is a guideline that could be applied to pretty much everyone at one point or other. Seeing the substantive issue here is under discussion at 3RR, this is looking increasingly like harassment and forum shopping. - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:DONTLIKEIT isn't even a guideline; it's a WP:Essay and therefore cannot be enforced except for when explained in terms of WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Close per above please. Cassianto 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for a warning about editor-focused discussion /WP:BLOCKDETERRENT for personal attacks on Miscellany for Deletion Project Page (user: Petrarchan47)

(adjusted per admin input)

I recently nominated the essay Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest ducks for deletion based on my concerns that it undermines consensus-building and collaborative editing, instead expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content. user:Petrarchan47 has taken great exception to this nomination, and has expressed this objection by off-topic attacks on my editing history on the deletion Talk page and with personal attacks in various discussions on other Talk pages.

In the discussion on the essay Talk page, I am singled out as a “COI duck”. The criticisms of my edits include using the FDA as a source for medical information (it is “non-neutral and non-independent”), removing a redundant sentence about birth defects from the SSRI article, and removing material about an antipsychotic from the Antidepressant article.

The same material is later posted to the MfD discussion page, in which I am referred to (directly) as a “COI duck” and (indirectly) as part of a group of editors who “gather at the same articles to create faux consensus, and flock around noticeboards to silence opponents through bans, etc”. (I believe this is only my second or third time bringing someone to ANI in 2 years of editing).

I responded to these attacks with explanations for my edits, and was soon thereafter hit with another list, also on the MfD discussion page.

I offered a civil statement that this Talk page was not the appropriate place for her demand that I justify a lengthy list of edits to other articles and demand that I defend myself from charges of bad faith editing.

She responds with more accusations of “pro pharma spin doctoring”

I left a standard “no personal attacks” template message on her user page and she responds again on the MfD Talk page accusing me of “bullying” behavior and suggesting that the NPA template I left was retaliaton for her vote.

I really don't want any conflict here and would just appreciate it if an admin would put in a word. I'm happy to discuss edits on the article page in question and to defer to an RfC if no consensus can be gained. But edits which have never been contested by Petra on the Talk pages of the articles in question are being used to attack my good faith and undermine my credibility on unrelated pages, and this is unhelpful. Thanks. Formerly 98 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be aware of this recent case where incredibly problematic and dangerous POV editing had a very real-world effect, and is damaging WP's reputation even further. If you read this Newsweek piece, you might note the similarities between the editing I pointed out with regard to pharmaceutical articles, and the editing done by WifiOne - mostly removing criticism of the New Delhi school. If an admin would skim the edits I brought to light, and consider the implications of the particular whitewashing that emerges, they would see that this is a serious matter, and it is much bigger than what a single volunteer should be expected to take on. It is a systemic problem, and given the prolific editing to pharmaceutical articles by F98, this case in particular deserves a closer look. If the method I have used to attempt bring this editing to light is considered more problematic than the edits themselves, well, I guess that's par for the course, but I hope that the content of our articles would take priority over drama. petrarchan47tc 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Petra, if you are unhappy with my edits, please open a case on me here or at COIN. The purpose of this discussion is your violation of the talk page and WP:NPA by questioning my integrity on article and project Talk pages, which are not for that purpose. This behavior is disruptive and interferes with a constructive discussion of content and sources. Whether or not my edits are "POV", the talk pages are not the appropriate place for questioning my good faith.

Once again, I respectfully request that you either take your concerns to COIN, open an ANI case on me, or keep your thoughts to yourself. The talk and project pages are not the place for all this invective. Formerly 98 23:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense to me. However, you are well aware that the first set of diffs was posted to my talk page on 19 March. You raised no objections whatsoever until now, so you might forgive me for thinking it wasn't being considered an "attack". petrarchan47tc 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

::In addendum, in spite of the very detailed description in this complaint of the exact behavior that I think is problematic, Petra just posted to the MfD project page suggesting that this filing was in retaliation for her vote against deletion.

I specifically said that I wasn't sure whether it is related to what some editors are referring to as a 'pattern of retaliation' regarding your copious warnings. petrarchan47tc 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The exact quote in your diff is "I'm not sure if this is related to supporting this essay, I was just taken to court for giving examples of the OP's pro-pharma editing in the survey section". Which has nothing to do with what you are saying here, but could probably have been interpreted more benignly than in my comment above, which I have struck.

Would you please just agree to limit your commentary to sources and content going forward and stop the personal remarks? I really hate these boards and do not like doing this. But on the other hand, I cannot have every controversial discussion that I get involved in disrupted with these silly diffs that you post, showing that I've made edits you disagree with and calling me a shill POV editor and "COI duck", ""spindoctor" and "tendentious editor" over edits that you never disputed at the time they were made. I really don't want to have these battles. Formerly 98 04:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you find the diffs silly - I'm sorry for our readers. I would not waste my time on this if these diffs didn't show extremely tendentious editing in a way that could be dangerous to human health. I consider the 'spindoctoring' that the diffs show to be of utmost importance. And yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. I have brought the diffs to only one venue beyond my talk page, so I'm not sure what you meant by "every controversial discussion that I get involved in". My advice would be: stick to the facts, don't spin or exaggerate, and there will be fewer problems with your edits. petrarchan47tc 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you are now claiming that I called you a shill? When did I do that? F98, if you can't stop misrepresenting me here why should anyone believe you are truthful and unbiased in your editing? I have not called you a shill, please strike that. I did confront you about several edits, like here and here, so I would ask that you strike another false claim. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 05:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I"ve struck and corrected to describe the accusations more precisely. I'm sorry you're concerned that my edits are a "threat to human health". Because it is reducing threats to human health caused by misinformation in articles that are read by hundreds of people daily that motivated me to become an editor. Generally speaking, I've removed poorly sourced material (and in a remarkable number of cases, statement that contradict their putative source) and added better sourced material. By itself, that may not be a guarantee of NPOV, but it beats the hell out of the opposite.

If you will confirm that we have an agreement that you will restrict your criticism to appropriate venues, including COIN and ANI, I will request that this complaint be closed without action. Formerly 98 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy what I said above as a confirmation: yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no doubt I will be hearing from you again, but as long as it is in the appropriate forums, there will be no hard feelings on this side. Formerly 98 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I do need to ask you to be more careful when quoting me. You brought me here because the list of diffs was taken to be an attack, since it wasn't presented in the appropriate forums. My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. Please don't extrapolate beyond what I have specifically said. I would also note that Geogene has made untrue claims about me in this thread and deserted the scene when asked for proof or to strike them. It seems obvious that you should be against personal attacks regardless of what 'team' is flinging them. It does not appear that policy, rather than personalities, is of primary concern, and that is disturbing. Groupthink is perhaps the greatest threat to this project, IMO, as the rules aren't adhered to evenly. It's hard for me to trust an editor for whom this is the case. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Petra, I'm generally against personal attacks, but like most people I tend to react more strongly to perceived attacks on myself than on others.

I'm quite cognizant of the fact that you are dilligently building the mother of all COI cases against me. Thats' ok. I'm not concerned by that because

• My conscience is clear
• My conflicts of interest are nil
• My work gets positive reviews from other medical editors, and
• With the exception of occassional mistakes of the sort that everyone makes, everything I do here is completely defensible. I'm not the one adding medical claims using tort attorney websites, blogs, and fringe primary research papers as sources, making statements that contradict the putative source, or skipping over the last 8 years of meta analyses so that I can find one that says a drug doesn't work. (Yes, I can provide examples of all of these, an no, I'm not saying you do, just that those are the sorts of things I fix here).

I'm absolutely certain that people are alive today who would be dead if I had not rewritten the fluoroquinolone articles, which were a REAL example of COI editing by people in litigation against the manufacturers, and seeking to influence the jury pool.

So please, go ahead. You have a right to your day (second day, actually, we've already done this once) in court. What I object to is being required to defend myself against the same charges over and over. Formerly 98 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I think you should reflect carefully on what @Petrarchan47: is telling you above by saying My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. That wording seems unusually precise to me, and s/he has used that exact phrase three times now. Are you sure you two have reached agreement? Geogene (talk) 19:30, Today (UTC−4) And by that I mean that I'm not sure Petrarchan47 understands here that the problem is not posting diffs in the wrong places, but that s/he posts personal attacks in the wrong places. It seems odd to me that s/he keeps referring specifically to what s/he is doing as "posting diffs". But this is not "my" ANI thread. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98 is correct, Petrarchan47, if you are going to make such claims against another editor, you need to present a case and provide evidence. Otherwise, it can be seen as a personal attack. Liz 23:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

May I add that last spring, the same user was accusing me of COI on article talk pages? Here's an example diff of Petrarchan forumshopping on an admin talkpage to get me blocked. User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI. Geogene (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you probably shouldn't add accusations without evidence. "User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI." That is a serious claim, and it needs to be proven with diffs or removed. It is an outright lie. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If needed, I will produce those diffs. But I don't want to go dig all that stuff up if nobody's even going to look at them. It's a waste of time. Geogene (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is needed, as you have already logged this statement, which is untrue and probably falls under "personal attack". If you don't provide links showing that I am always hounding someone over COI, you need to strike that statement. You cannot use these forums to take revenge on editors, and you certainly shouldn't muddy the water with lies. petrarchan47tc 03:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning. If it looks like the behavior will continue, a short block might be warranted to get the point across, but I'm not sure if that's needed yet. Looks like very clear WP:HOUNDING behavior and violates WP:COI in the manner petrachan has been approaching this. Bringing actual evidence of COI to WP:COIN to air it out with the community is what should be done if there are legitimate concerns, but interjecting this into various talk pages to this degree rises to the level of nothing more than WP:ASPERSIONS. Looking at some of these discussions, it looks like there may be a much longer term interaction where I'd be apt to suggest a one-way interaction ban against petrachan47, but considering the person being hounded is just asking for a warning, that seems fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose warning. Please tell me that providing diffs to past discussions to support an argument is not cause for a warning. Editors are warned for casting aspersions when they don't provide diffs, and now they are warned for providing diffs? I find this very confusing. To begin, the MfD was initiated before the ink was dry on the essay - no discussion first as our guidelines suggest. What we see now are arguments between Keep and Delete positions resulting from an ill-conceived MfD. Unfortunately, our overworked admins are now forced to deal with these spurious allegations at a delete request? Please tell me it isn't so. Atsme☯ 00:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:NPA which states:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Formerly 98 00:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: There is no official warning at Misplaced Pages, and this board is also not necessary for that official warning (which does not exist). Admins are needed to enact sanctions such as blocks, but if someone needs warning for violating principles at Misplaced Pages, just warn them. I'm not sure what additional weight a discussion like this will have. They can't claim they aren't aware that they are being warned, so further votes asking them to be warned are not meaningful here. If a ban or block or other sanction of some sort is needed, then perhaps that discussion needs to be had, but to hold a long discussion where a bunch of people say "Please stop..." is not particularly meaningful. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you propose? Formerly 98 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't propose anything. I am not familiar with the situation. But the purpose of a warning is to let someone know that their behavior is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. It takes exactly one person to do this, and doesn't require a vote. If violations continue after the warning, then this board is appropriate for sanctions for continued refusal to comply. I don't really have an opinion on this one incident, except to note that a vote on a "warning" is a meaningless, time-wasting endeavor. The person knows they have been warned. Further piling on for the exact same incident is meaningless, unless there is either a) additional problems after the warning or b) we decide that something more severe than a warning is needed, I'm not sure what is to be gained by this. I have no actual opinion on this user in this case, I am merely noting the fruitlessness of lengthy discussions and "votes" that cannot actually lead to any action. --Jayron32 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Community issued warnings are issued here all the time, and have a lot more weight than a single user giving a warning. It's generally meant as in indication to the user they have gone too far in their behavior, especially when they don't take user warnings seriously are believe the warning is incorrect. It also makes it easier for the community to impose additional sanctions like interaction bans if needed if the behavior continues. ANI warnings are usually the first step in actions taken here when it appears the editor can reverse their behavior problem that could otherwise result in a ban. That's the general spirit here anyways since most prefer to treat a ban as a last resort. Maybe that's not the official stance, but if that's the case, I guess it's become practice for better or worse.Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - first thing I read in the first diff presented was the OP's statement which I found to be extremely accusatory of Petrarchan47. It really doesn't make any sense to be asking an admin to issue a warning to an editor you accused of WP:TE as follows: "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." Let me get this straight - the OP requested a warning against the accused for, and I quote, "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." This is the same OP who initiated a MfD within a few hours of the essay going into mainspace - no prior discussion, and no GF interaction - just a MfD to get rid of it. Also notice, the first diff he provided is a quote wherein he accused the editor of WP:TE? The remaining diffs devolve from there. Forgive me, but this doesn't represent battleground behavior, it looks more like playground behavior. I now have a better understanding of why admins are overworked. Atsme☯ 02:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme::

• The quote about "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." was not made by me to Petra, but was made by Petra to me.
• The quote about "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." was not an accusation addressed at Petra, it was a criticism of the essay, and one that was repeated by more than half of the editors who provided feedback on the essay on the MfD page.

I respectfully request that you strike and correct your statements above. Thanks, Formerly 98 02:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, Formerly 98 - mouse over on diffs makes it difficult to determine who said what which just taught me a valuable lesson. Click on it to see the full conversation. I did a strike. Atsme☯ 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, and things have gotten heated lately, but I understand that you are trying to do the right thing. I apologize that I have not been very good at communicating that the last few days. Formerly 98 03:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support admins reviewing the situation. The fake essay is more like a how to guide for pro-quackery editing on Misplaced Pages. It has nothing to do with identifying COI editors. If admins review some of the editors who want to keep the garbage Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest ducks page you will find many interesting edits. Unless admins deal with the problematic editors the disruptions will continue indefinitely. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to say anything of the quality of the essay, as that seems to be a discussion for the deletion review already underway, the essay seems to be written in good faith based on a discussion with multiple participants. I'm really not seeing anything at that essay that requires admin intervention.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• As to the charge here for a warning, there does seem to be reason to do so. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Highly debatable. The author is on the losing side of a months-long attempt to whitewash promotion of quackery by a minor crank, G. Edward Griffin. This essay is identified by several of those involved in that dispute, as a blatant invocation of the "pharma shill gambit". Those of ius who do have extensive experience of dealing with COI editing, both directly and in in my case via OTRS, do not recognise this essay as a productive or useful one, especially since it appears to identify use of guidelines such as WP:MEDRS as a signature behaviour of COI. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The language I would use would be tendentious in this case and I do personally find that the essay unhelpful. I agree with the position that it is a "Pharma shill gambit" and would suggest that some users have invoked a "pharma shill gambit" in defense of the essay in the deletion discussion. However I don't really see any actual evidence that the creation of this essay is tendentious or intended to be. It does seem to be a good faith effort by individuals with poor knowledge and understanding of policy. Unless there's an argument of a failure to get the point, I don't really see any necessary action to take other than the deletion discussion that has already been opened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As Petra has agreed to limit her editor-focused comments to the proper forums for such discussions, I respectfully request closure of this discussion with no administrative action. Formerly 98 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it “editor-focused” to link diffs of editing you find problematic and/or non-neutral?

I’m confused here. Is linking diffs from an editor’s contributions during a discussion (at a location other than an admin board) against policy? I think some clarity on this issue from ANI would be helpful. I’ve noticed such diffs often seem to be linked at locations other than admin boards. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of user behavior should normally be limited to user talk pages and to pages designated for that purpose. See WP:TPYES:

"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

Also the summary at the top of the WP:TALK page states: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."

WP:AVOIDYOU on the WP:NPA page states

"As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

WP:NPA further states

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

The purpose of this is to keep the article discussions from becoming personalized. Discussions of editor behavior are physically segregated from discussions of article content.

Formerly 98 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that linking diffs to past editing is related to content, although the contributor is also listed. I'm not sure how this applies to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent tag removal, possible sock puppetry at Oscar Peñas autobiography

User:Openas is the primary author of Oscar Peñas, an article which his user page more or less duplicates. I tagged the article for COI, autobiography, and overly detailed, and three different IPs removed them with no edit summary and no other communication. KrakatoaKatie protected the page and now Openas is back and has removed the tags again. As none of them are responding to messages and it's almost certainly a case of sock/meat puppetry with no sign of stopping, ANI seemed the most appropriate avenue at this point. I can create an SPI if that's preferred, but I don't know if that's standard if we're mainly looking at multiple IPs -- and thus, more or less, a duck test. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Question - did you bring this situation to the attention of WP:COIN? Atsme☯ 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not. There is a COI, but I regard that noticeboard for COI that affects content and discussions about the content rather than COI that is accompanied by sock puppetry and edit warring. I could be wrong, though -- it just seemed more of a straightforward behavioral thing. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to their description, it states: (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Misplaced Pages. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy. You might want to take it there, first. Perhaps Jytdog can advise further. Atsme☯ 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd still generally bring it up at COIN if only to get the attention of editors who work with this kind of behavior a lot anyways. There might be enough for an SPI here, but I've dealt with similar cases where it turned out to be employees of the person in question, so they may not always be true socks. I'd bring it to COIN and see what others think is the best course of action there. COIN is also for discussing how to handle potential COI problems, so the "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI" basically sums that up as general as possible without saying that outright. It's the place to go for questions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Although the editors on COIN doubtless have good intentions, it does not always deliver good outcomes, so I'm not going to insist that anything COI related must be discussed there, if there's another relevant noticeboard/talkpage/whatever. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away for a bit. I protected the page after an RFPP request, because I agree that this passes the duck test for socking and I wanted to see if the registered user would keep removing the tags. If the guy is notable, he's notable, but that doesn't mean he gets to run his own puppet show with multiple IPs on an article about himself (or anything else). I suggest both COIN and opening an SPI. And I gave him a warning for disruptive editing. Let me know if I can help further. :-) KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

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

This is one of the weirdest sorta-kinda legal threats I've seen. An admin may want to monitor the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unwarranted Block

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

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

Uh, assuming that this is open to other editor input, is there really any reason for such an aggressive reblocking of a year? It seems counter intuitive to, after a minor mistake or something that the editor regretted to just be reblocked for a year. Though I suppose seeing You can be a little more patient and control your anger if you want to be a judge on Misplaced Pages. Thank God you are not a judge in real life. Otherwise, you would be oppressing many innocent people. would probably be related to that reblocking. Though since I love to be the person who proposes something like this, I would be fine with clemency in the notion of reducing the block to 1 month or even less if the user would civilly identify what they did wrong, their plan to rectify it and failing that, how they plan to avoid such conduct in the future. It seems they're already topic banned from the topic so it honestly should be easy to avoid. Tutelary (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh.... why is this here? --IJBall (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like because the blocked user asked for it to be posted here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a brand new account posted it here. Just a note that this was an arbitration enforcement block, and administrators are not at liberty to unblock or change the block. To do so could result in immediate de-sysop. This appeal needs to be filed at the AE noticeboard. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, I noticed DickJohnston (talk · contribs) posted the original message too, and was suspicious as well – possible Block evasion?... --IJBall (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion, and the name obviously a personal attack on the admin Johnston. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:How not to appeal a block. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock. If anyone wishes to copy the user's appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard they are free to do so. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unhatting this, because I made a mistake. WP:AEBLOCK says that the block can also be reviewed at WP:AN. If there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors to unblock, the editor can be unblocked. Here is the wording of the unblock request:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have been falsly accused of not removing a comment, when in fact it was removed. User Kansas Bear insulted back with "ignorant childish rant". Heeded warning by EdJohnston with a warning to be unbiased but he arrogantly insulted and blocked for a year. Appealing for a decent review of the case.Yozer1 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2015

-- Diannaa (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Decline appeal on the basis of the actual contributions, which are aggressive, and the rather obvious block evasion. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The blocking admin is now giving guidance to the user on his talk page as to how to file an appeal directly at AE, so I am re-archiving this thread as redundant. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Unprovoked combative editing from the ironically named "Peace is contagious"

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

Encountered Peace is contagious editing at Better Call Saul. A few days earlier I had just trimmed a 285 word pilot episode ("Uno") summary down to 213. The ideal length per WP:TVPLOT is 100-200 words and I had opened a discussion about this on the article's talk page days before the user showed up.

User Peace is contagious arrived, and added a lot of unnecessary detail to the episode summary exemplified here. You'll note an analysis about black and white photography, that Jimmy has a mustache, that a VHS tape is used, a pouring of a drink, and a note that we eventually go back into color. None of these additions are crucial to our understanding of the plot. I contacted the user here and expressed my position in as polite a way as I could.

"Post Breaking Bad, the first seven minutes of BCS open in black and white, to a 1940's style song Address Unknown with no spoken lines of dialogue, to emphasize Saul Goodman's transformation from cavalier, loquacious "criminal lawyer" to toiling, fearful, mustached, Nebraskan, mall-Cinnabon manager. Later in his spartan apartment, "Gene" makes himself a Rusty Nail and watches a VHS tape of his Saul Goodman commercials."

Edits not consistent with WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA

• "again, a child trying to teach the adult SIGH"
• "Is this Drmargi guy for real ?!? ... Jesus, how low do we hafta pander to illiterate barbarians, thugs & punks "unga bunga bunga"
• "U r too young to know what is important or relevant in life...I am too & I am 42 ! R u a billionaire ? a millionaire ? do u have an Oxford degree ? Then u know mostly the obtuse & odious present"
• "stop vandalizing my work, u dilettante" (This was in response to Drovethrughosts restoring a comment that PIC had refactored inappropriately. Or maybe it was in response to me for restoring a comment that PIC had refactored inappropriately. That's unclear as the user seemingly kept confusing me for Drovethrughosts)
• "I can see how a Katy Perry, Bieber, 1 Direction fan would not see a difference with them or Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck or Queen or Elvis" and "I dont' have time for debating w/ a 26 y/o ...stop jerking off, take the SAT, get a college degree & get a job ??? I'm not ur therapist or English prof. Contact an official Misplaced Pages editor/ & have them settle this dispute." (In addition to the personal attacks, user refactored my talk page comment and I eventually had to warn him about this here, which details four refactorings.

There are numerous other matters as well, for instance, the user has no capacity for indenting responses which require fixing, and even SineBot has gotten tired of signing comments for him. Based on how quickly conversation and behavior has devolved, I'm not convinced the user is here for constructive purposes, rather they seem to be here to be pissy and fight with other editors that he pegs as lessers. Waste of time, this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cyphoidbomb, looks like an angry teenager trying to learn the ropes of trolling. Someone should tell him about 4chan... EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult editor to work with because what he does well comes in a package with a refusal to use edit summaries, chaotic over-editing, disruptive/tendentious editing, a tendency to edit war and utterly obnoxious talk page behavior. (OK, WP:NPA, but let's get real here...) He sees himself as the adult and everyone else as children, yet his comments on talk pages consist largely of insults to editors who revert or revise what he has written. He refuses to do anything that might even loosely be described as collaboration, and his writing is generally in "text speak" rendering most of his talk page comments difficult if not downright impossible to understand. I don't know whether he's a wanna-be troll or just clueless, but he treats other editors who try to work with him as adversaries, and generally makes it difficult to edit the article on Better Call Saul, its individual episodes, and from what I can tell, several other TV-related articles as well. Someone has got to take this guy in hand and do something about him. Given the pace at which he edits, I wouldn't be surprised if there are WP:3RR violations among his edits over the last 48 hours. --Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He is currently bombarding the Better Call Saul article with edits that are a clear case of WP:POINT, and when reverted reverts back without even writing an edit summary. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, I think he's up to 20RR at this point... can someone just block him and deal with the technicalities later??? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He is out of control, I have to agree. I tried to set up an WP:AN3 report just now, and he's made so many reverts I can't get them into any sort of meaningful order. I have to concur; a meaningful time-out is in order. --Drmargi (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This totally looks like a trolling situation: the editor has been baiting, refuses to discuss their edits constructively, is slinging insults, and has started backpedaling, with jive comments that don't acknowledge their problematic editing. After being notified there was an open ANI case, "OK, I get it now...call me a bit obtuse. The main BCS page is for brief summaries". After Peace went through a flurry of removing incriminating posts from his talk page, editor EauZenCashHaveIt pointed out that all of the nonsense was preserved in the edit summary. The reported user replied, "I think I got it right now ? Yes ? Brief summaries on the main BCS page ?". None of this is constructive. User is ignoring the personal attacks. Typical stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He's completely back-peddling now ever since the ANI came up as evident here, by playing "dumb" as like he never was making continuous disruptive edits for hours on end (which were reverted by several separate editors), making uncivil and personal attacks towards other editors on talk pages, making no effort in his edit summaries to explain his edits or being collaborative with other editors, and malforming his talk page by removing comments from other edits in full or significantly editing them. The issue plot summaries was explained by Cyphoidbomb (and myself) right at the beginning of this situation, including linking him to WP guidelines, but he acted clueless, non-responsive to the issue-at-hand, and hurled uncivil comments towards others. Cyphoidbomb has supplied plenty of diffs to support his uncivil and disruptive behavior. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this user. He since made three more unwarranted reverts, reinstating his version of the article (all while making it look it he's the one enforcing guidelines, when all he did yesterday was ignore them), and has continued making uncivil comments on talk pages. He shows no signs whatsoever of cooperation or willingness to listen or work with other editors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that despite a serious and ongoing problem with this editor, and a posting on this board that has been sitting for over twelve hours with comments from four editors trying to deal with him, it appears not to have attracted the attention of even one administrator. I guess the drama quotient isn't sufficient to get one of the (how many?) admins we have to take a look at what's going on here and DO SOMETHING about this editor, who clearly lacks the competence and understanding of policy to be editing, much less the willingness to do anything but create trouble. And we wonder why the community has an increasingly diminishing level of confidence in the administrative corps. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a post on WP:AN about this. The admin presence at ANI and AE is pretty light these days. I think several of the regularly patrolling admins have either retired, turned in their bit, or took the noticeboards off of their Watchlists. I saw one admin who had 1 edit in 2013, 2 edits in 2014 and is still marked as an active admin. But this is a conversation for another forum. Liz 19:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on game/award show articles

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

Over the last few months, RRRR8888 (talk · contribs) (and their socks) has (very oddly) persisted on adding clearly incorrect information to game and award show articles. Most notably, the articles include The Game Awards, 41st People's Choice Awards, and American Ninja Warrior. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RRRR8888/Archive for a list of accounts and the type of editing done. Some examples:

• Game Awards - There were no "Best Sci-Fi" or "Stealth Game" categories (see official list)
  • Reinstated:
• 41st People's Choice Awards - There is no "Favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy Movie" nomination category (see official list)
  • Reinstated:
• American Ninja Warrior - There are well over 80 episodes (see this list), but the editor insists on there being less than 30.
  • Reinstated:

These types of edits have persisted for months across a variety of articles, and the editor has primarily used socks to edit war and re-instate these. Myself and a few other editors have reverted these edits (pinging @JasonNolan64: and @Drmies:); however, the editor continues. Now, the same false editing has extended to a long list of IP addresses, the most obvious case shown at the history of American Ninja Warrior. List of IPs:

• 149.151.67.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 149.151.85.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 149.151.77.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4200:7AD9:2806:33CE:94C3:1E94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4200:7AD9:11EC:523C:B49C:40C0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4200:7AD9:5944:2123:8D88:A3B6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:84:4100:61:A56F:199A:BADD:AAF9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4200:7AD9:11EC:523C:B49C:40C0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:483A:334A:A7A5:12DC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Viewing these IPs' contributions show similar editing and warring on the same articles (again, mainly The Game Awards, 41st People's Choice Awards, and American Ninja Warrior). To the best of my knowledge, all these IPs geolocate to the New Jersey area. Could blocks (possibly range) be in order? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. - I just remembered that I brought this issue up before here back in December, which resulted in a one-month range block. As the edits persist, I'd like to request a renewing of the range blocks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I applied lengthy semi-protection to the three you listed in your last note and will be happy to semi more of them. I'm not smart enough to do range blocks. As a side note, those articles exemplify what's wrong with us, in allowing the endless addition of meaningless trivialities "as long as they're verified"--we're a fansite, a collection of trivialities, a TV schedule, etc. Thanks SuperHamster, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Drmies: I suppose a rangeblock wouldn't be necessary at this point, unless the IPs venture to other articles. I'll leave that to an admin to decide if it's appropriate. I'll keep an eye. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Wider range this time, there would probably be collateral. The protection should be adequate. NativeForeigner 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, thanks for responding Native. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:KWW abusing revision deletion

User:Kww is far exceeding their authority and acting to deliberately compromise the integrity of the encyclopaedia, in pursuit of a personal vendetta. His actions contravene numerous policies, and I believe wider scrutiny of his unilateral attacks on me will be desirable.

His extreme attacks on me have resulted from the following chain of events.

1. a false 3RR report was filed by User:Hafspajen , who was upset that I removed unencyclopaedic text from Wilderness Hut. The text was in violation of core policies, being neither neutral nor verifiable. I explained this clearly but the user merely restored the text without attempting to justify it. Hafspajen has a history of reverting to restore extremely poor content to the encyclopaedia for no good reason , ,
2. As a result of the false report, I was blocked. I had reverted three times, as had Hafspajen, but Hafspajen suffered no sanction for trying to force unencyclopaedic material into the article. Kww, falsely claiming that I was subject to a 0RR restriction, decided to block me for three months. The 0RR restriction was in fact no longer in effect.
3. Kww subsequently declared that he had banned me for three years.
4. In contravention of the policy on revision deletion, and apparently out of fear that people who agree with my edits might restore them, he has taken to not just undoing my work but removing it from the edit history in its entirety. See for example . Revision deletion policy states that "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed", and that "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy". KWW has clearly abused the tool to remove material that should not have been removed.
5. In contravention of policy, he has restored vandalism to the encyclopaedia. Diffs are not available because he has deleted them.
6. In all of this he has ignored consensus (see discussions at the bottom of the page here), and his actions have contributed to the departure of a much respected administrator.
7. Kww has stated that they do not care if they are compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. Their sole aim is to drive me way. "If everyone would leave the reversions in place and not wring their hands over whether their edits were improvements or not, we could keep up the solid wall of rejection that is necessary to be rid of this editor."

The ultimate cause of all of this is the constant reverting of my edits for no reason at all. I am compiling a very extensive list of these. Three small examples are those I listed by Hafspajen earlier. One brand new fresh one is this one, made with the flagrantly false claim that "previous version is correct", when the previous version included incorrect designations and absurd hyperbole ("may potentially revolutionize thinking about the physics of supernovae").

What I would like to happen is this:

1. Unblock me. The block was applied for spurious reasons and has no support in policy.
2. Warn and then block people who revert for no reason. Their actions are highly destructive but have been allowed and encouraged for many years. Hafspajen received no admonishment of any kind for their deliberately destructive behaviour.
3. Warn KWW to stop stalking me and to drop their vendetta against me.
4. In light of his abuse of the revision deletion tool, remove his ability to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.133.182 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• OP admits to editing through a block, therefore I'm closing this. Unblocks can be requested on their talk page. BMK (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the non-admin closure. While the individual may be editing through the block, that can be addressed separately. The issue presented here shows some merit and deserves some discussion. Mike V • Talk 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've looked over Kww's revision deletions and there seems to be a number that do not meet the revision deletion criteria: 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 (Each diff represents one instance of revision deletion and may include multiple revisions.) I must say that I am concerned about these actions as the revision deletion tool is permitted to be used only in very strict situations. Mike V • Talk 01:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They all qualify under R5:Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete. If these had been completely new articles, they would qualify as G5 speedies, meaning that they certainly qualify for deletion under deletion policy. I do not execute such deletions routinely. In this case, it is a result of a long-term abuser that has not been dissuaded by the typical WP:RBI treatment. After this many years, it's evident that stronger steps are required.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the R5 criterion says, with the exception of fixing cut-and-paste moves and history merges, if selective deletion is required, RevisionDelete is usually preferable (see above), and should be used instead of the old method of "delete and partial undelete". It is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary. Selective deletion is not used for articles created by a blocked/banned user. Also, the G5 deletion policy only covers pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. (emphasis mine) As such, it's not suitable to revision delete the edits. I understand that these sorts of situations can be frustrating, but it should be handled by reverting the edits, semi-protection, blocks, range blocks, etc. when appropriate. Mike V • Talk 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that you include the notes about RD5, but not its definition: "Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete". If material would have qualified under deletion policy, it can qualify under RD5 of selection deletion policy. These were edits made by a blocked editor, and there were no substantial edits built on any of them (in fact, there were no cases where any edits by anyone other than the banned editor were removed: I didn't even have to make a judgement call about what constitutes a "substantial" edit). Since articles built that way would qualify for deletion under deletion policy, edits that meet that same criteria can qualify under selective deletion policy using RD5, so long as the reason (in this case, "block evasion") is made clear in the summary. Since the deletion policy they fall under is a speedy deletion policy, there isn't need for individual discussion of each edit: I'm free to do so as an individual administrator. Your reading of RD5 appears to render it meaningless: if your objection to my usage is that I didn't delete the entire article, then RD5 would never apply. As I said, this is not something I do routinely or without thought: your suggestion has been used in this case for years without discernable effect.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a small sample of these revdels, and also don't see that these merit hiding. I think we can tolerate more transparency than we seem to be giving ourselves credit for in these cases. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on Kww's extreme views as regards removing any trace of a blocked user's activity. Samsara 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: Am I right in thinking that your argument is along the lines of: G5 allows deletion of entire articles if they are created by a blocked/banned user (with no substantive edits by other users); therefore it is a legitimate use of RevDel to remove edits by blocked/banned users from the edit history of articles which do have substantive edits by other users (since this equates to "deleting" their work)? I'm not at this point venturing an opinion on whether that's correct or not, but I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from before I make any comment. Thanks, Yunshui _水 13:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This "substantive edits by other users" issue is really strange to me. The purpose of that clause in G5 is to avoid deleting other editors' work. If a blocked or banned editor creates an article and that is followed by other editors making substantial changes to that material, an admin cannot later go in and delete that article based on G5 because that deletion would also delete good-faith work by legitimate editors. That creates a situation that requires community discussion, so the speedy deletion would be invalid.

Similarly, if there was a case where a blocked or banned editor had made an edit and other editors had built upon that work, modifying and reusing the blocked or banned editor's work, RD5 could not be applied: since G5 won't allow us to sweep away legitimate work, G5 can't be invoked as the basis for an RD5 selective delete in that situation.

Here, though, the blocked editor is the top of stack: the last editor to edit the page (except, in many cases, for edits that had already reverted the material) was the banned editor, and reversion deleting his material has no effect whatsoever on edits made by other editors. Take Night of the Doctor's history for example. The IP had been edit warring again (that plus personal abuse is the reason he is blocked) and there is no difference between the "before" and "after":see the total diff.

In short, when evaluating whether G5 can be used as the basis for an RD5 deletion, I look at whether substantive edits by other users have been made to the material being considered for deletion, not whether there were substantive edits made prior to the edit (or to completely unrelated sections of the article) that will be unaffected by the deletion.

I reiterate that the cases where I do this are quite rare: I don't do this for casual block evasion. While there are fifty diffs listed, that is a sign of how determined this editor is to evade blocks: it's all one case, it's all one editor, it's all one editor that has been evading blocks for years and has no intention of honouring them. Reverting and ignoring has been ineffective in this case, and there's no reason to expect that it will suddenly become effective.

If you believe my interpretation is wrong, I would like to understand what you believe a proper application of RD5 to be. When can a selective deletion be applied by pointing at the article deletion policy, if this isn't a valid case?—Kww(talk) 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I don't actually think you're wrong per se, at least not from a technical standpoint. RD5 allows the use of revision deletion where the deletion policy would mandate deletion, and the deletion policy's reasons for deletion include content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion. G5 is a criterion for speedy deletion, and therefore it seems logical that if G5 were applicable, RevDel would be appropriate. I can see how your actions are consistent with this interpretation of the policies.

However, whilst I don't think there's any abuse of RevDel here - I believe your use of it is legitimate from a policy standpoint, or at least easily defeneded - in practice, this is a pretty unusual action to take; I don't think I've ever seen RevDel applied this way before. In similar circumstances, I would be inclined to simply revert or remove the user's edits per WP:BANREVERT, but if there's no other reason for deleting them from the history, RevDel seems, I don't know, overkill? Is there any reason that you've gone with revision deletion over simple reversion? Yunshui _水 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Simply length of time this LTA has been continuing and observing how particularly determined this editor is, as well as threats from editors to continuously restore his material. You are quite correct that it is "unusual", which is why I keep bringing up that this is not my typical reaction to socking and block evasion.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, my personal take on this is "no harm, no foul". The edits wouldn't have been allowed to stand, and revdeleting them doesn't hurt the encylopedia - whilst I'd suggest that this course of action might not be optimal when the rollback button is available, there's no breach of policy or abuse of the tool that I can see. Yunshui _水 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

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

Could someone please take a look at this now closed deletion discussion. I'm still new here, and I don't want to make any rash accusations. Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: What exactly is it you're requesting admin action for? That's a long closed discussion and I doubt anyone wants to read through the whole thing to figure out what the issue is. Sam Walton (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Ceannlann gorm: You may be looking for deletion review, if your intent is to get the deletion reversed. However I would first recommend talking to Jc37, since he was the admin that closed the discussion. Either way you go, if your intention is to open up a new discussion on the deletion then you will need to make a very good, non-partial, clear argument as to why the template should remain and why you felt that the deletion consensus was invalid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) — Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to get someone else's opinion on the matter.Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing editor making libellous allegations about a public figure

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

Elizabeth Flaherty Scone is a new account apparently created to add OR to Upper Hunter Shire. I've twice reverted the OR and left a polite request on her talk page to discuss on the article's talk page, but that prompted the allegation "you are in fact a troll known as (Redacted) who is a keen supporter of (Redacted) who is censoring ANY information which he and his faction of Councillors simply don't like." I am not either of the people mentioned and have applied {{redacted}} to their names but, as members of the public I was wondering if the claim should be subject to revdel. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Block for attempted WP:OUTING - correct or incorrect identity neither here nor there - is in order. Keri (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning. I confidently expect the user to continue, and then we can banninate. If someone wants to block until they give a good account of themselves then that's fine, but the user is really too new to know better. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to consider the possibility, however slight it may appear at first, that someone is impersonating "Elizabeth Scone" and trying to discredit them by acting inappropriately using a username like that. A quick Google search reveals that there is a person by this name who operates a PR firm in the Upper Hunter Shire. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Phantom" Consensus Talks

Hello! I have encountered a few situations where editors state a "consensus talk" exists that over-rules a certain edit but, when I ask where said conversation took place, I have been told, "I don't have to tell you that."

Is that correct? Can an editor simply state that a consensus talk exists but, never state where? What would prevent an editor from pretending a consensus talk happened (when it really didn't) just to further their own agenda (which I believe is the case - this editor has been making this "consensus talk" claim for years now but, never once backed it up - nor has any other editor confirmed they were a part of it) even though every other related page follows the guidelines myself and other editors have been attempting to implement? Thanks in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can you link to some of these discussions? Reyk _YO! 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The main one is here (with the most recent revert happening here - although there have been many over the years).

However, an un-related issue (that has since been resolved) did have a user(@Raintheone:) stating "As if you have to link it" after I'd asked (multiple times) where a conversation happened.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have to tell you that </humour>
• I believe the disussion referred is with Rm994 which links to Project:Soap Operas SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I suggest just starting a WP:RfC. The discussions about this are a couple years old, so maybe consensus will change to your opinion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. Also, if someone won't tell you where a consensus discussion is and a quick search can't find it, simply inform them that you are going to assume that no such discussion exists and behave accordingly.

Question: does the material being added/removed have a citation to a reliable source attached to it? WP:V cannot be overruled by local consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the original question: Yes, when asked to provide a link to the discussion by which the alleged consensus was established, the challenged party has to provide it. Without exception. If no link is provided, the discussion may be presumed to not exist, and users may proceed accordingly. There are no "phantom" discussions, the challenger is not required to search for something that somebody else alleges, it's not easy to check 10 years of archives at 4 million talk pages and all archives of all noticeboards. Kraxler (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As someone who has questioned Rm994 about said-discussions a few years prior — in context of adding recurring years to the List of Days of Our Lives cast members — they were never able to pin-point the discussion and nor have I ever been able to pin-point the location of the discussion. They simply revert on their own accord citing this discussion, which seems to be a case of owning the page to their own beliefs and preferences, yet allowing the years when characters are adding to the "Prior" section of the list (now re-directed to List of previous Days of Our Lives cast members. livelikemusic 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've also been at the hand of these 'phantom' consensus discussions and it's really quite annoying as well aggravating. If they can't cite a discussion, it's easy to assume that there isn't one and that they are making it up. But you can't really assume malice, considering WP:AGF. Honestly, if they keep stonewalling any type of discussion citing this non-existent consensus, I'd say bring them to WP:DRN or ANI if that's already been tried. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• With the haphazard nature of Misplaced Pages, it is not uncommon for an editor to recall that there was consensus on a certain issue, but be unable to locate the relevant discussion. So I would not assume that the claim is false. However, as others have noted above, without evidence of consensus, a claim of consensus has no weight. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment I've also run into editors who say if they made an edit to an article, at some point in the past, and it wasn't reverted, that this means it represents the consensus point of view because it wasn't challenged. This, of course, is faulty reasoning as most editors do not comb through an article history, checking each edit to see if they agree with it. Liz 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually according to the nifty flow chart over at WP: Consensus, an unchanged edit is current consensus. However, I would say it's a weak consensus compared to one that involves any sort of discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But this would mean that any edits to all articles, including vandalism or copyright infringements, are considered to be consensus until a time comes when a new editor would like to remove them. If there is not an immediate reversion or if there are further edits after the original edit, the new editor would have to get a new consensus on the talk page to change the article back. This might be what the flow chart says but this is not how editing actually occurs on Misplaced Pages. Liz 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and copyright infringements would be an exception to that, just like they are exceptions to the 3RR rule.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This seems pretty straight forward. The consensus or not of a previous edit isn't particularly important in these scenarios. What is important is getting consensus for whatever change is being proposed. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm having problems at Islamic calendar with SPACKlick and others who maintain that a discussion at Talk:Muhammad prevents a consensus being formed at the local talk page. They also say that the consensus of an RfC is "assessed against all our policies and guidelines whether specifically raised or not". This claim is made in the context of an allegation that following an RfC it is disruptive to strengthen an article by adding further reliable sources. Comments anyone? I'm not notifying SPACKlick as s/he is already party to this discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP is raising the issue of Muhammad images yet again and is ignoring the RFC concluded on that talk page yet again and is canvassing yet again. --NeilN 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To add to NeilN's comment. This user is objecting to the conclusion of an RFC a couple of months ago at Talk:Islamic Calendar about the use of an image the IP claims is NPOV. The RFC concluded the image was appropriate but the IP will not accept that formed consensus and so seeks to discredit editors that disagree with them and canvasses in the hope of a new opinion rather than moving on. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The picture is of a man preaching in a mosque. Unfortunately the artist is not on hand to tell us what he had in mind. However we do have unimpeachable sources telling us that Mohammed prohibited intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage>The Farewell Pilgrimage was delivered in the open on camelback in front of thousands of pilgrims. The above editors have removed sourced confirmation of what this picture represents and replaced it with speculation. The old saying about camels passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind here. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Now SPACKlick accuses me of seeking to discredit editors and stalking them and conflates the discussion on the local talk with this one here. He's also having a go at another editor who thinks it's a good idea when showcasing art to tell the readers what it signifies. That's what I wanted to do - explain to the readers that the Farewell Pilgrimage was one of, if not the most significant events in the relationship between Muhammad and his followers and that to relegate it to a sermon in a mosque is disrespectful. But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God. Both of them are arguing that they can satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV by citing a doubtful source and that other editors who want to cite better sources are being unreasonable. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God." What are you on about? --NeilN 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that slightly wrong. What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious. But it's a fact that he's obsessed with sex, and that's inimical to the ethos of a believer. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "slightly wrongs" happen pretty often. "What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious" Diff please? And "obsessed with sex" - seriously or are you just trolling now? --NeilN 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, wouldn't removing citations without prior discussion also be an exception to that rule?87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Can you elaborate please? What exactly do you mean by "removing citations without prior discussion?"Cebr1979 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: This. --NeilN 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, that's a lengthy conversation that has been going on for over a week now with no references to any pages I have any interest in editing so I'll politely abstain from the IP's invite to comment. Thank you for you clearing up the confusion, @NeilN:.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To those still following along, be aware that these "general" questions from the IP all have one goal in mind. I've responded to their actual goal here. --NeilN 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your first point see . As for your second point, here’s a sanitised three months of editing (it’s much worse later).

Sex symbol (2), Lovespoon, Temple of the Five Concubines, LGBT rights in Germany, Crumpet, Grease (lubricant) 3, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender, Slavery (13), Buttocks (4), Dolly Parton (3), Excretion, It sucks, Female reproductive system (5), Scumbag, Randy Brown, Scrotum (3), Blonde stereotype, John Dicks, Anti – pedophile activism, Flyleaf (2), Nine Inch Nails, Fafafini, Yaoi, Marquis de Sade, Gay (2), Epaphroditos, Cradle of Filth, Paraphilia, Daughters of Liberty, Nick Abbot, Steve Allan (2), Co – sleeping, Prostitution, Hepatitis (2). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing everyone on here why you shouldn't be taken seriously. By the way, if the numbers in brackets are the number of edits I've made to each article... I have 2,731 article edits in 2015 so far. --NeilN 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is no one going to block the IP for trolling/personal attacks? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Having a look through the talk page history at Talk:Islamic calendar, it seems there has been one or another IP from London advocating and wikilawyering to have this picture removed for spurious reasons for over five years, in spite of very clear and very thorough consensus to include it. This ongoing campaigning is disruptive, plain and simple. They need to drop the stick and respect consensus, or else it's pretty clear they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Replying to NeilN and Ivanvector, WP:V is not a vehicle for pushing an editor's personal point of view, it's a mechanism for ensuring articles are factually accurate. The undisputed facts are

• the Farewell Sermon was delivered in the open, on camelback, in front of thousands
• the prohibition of intercalation was made during the Farewell Sermon.

Therefore, to caption a picture of a man in a mosque preaching to a congregation of six cannot be accurately captioned "Muhammad prohibiting Nasi" (which is the native term for the practice).

As for wikilawyering, NeilN has argued that the fact that the French president walked into a clinic is justification for adding crappy content to Misplaced Pages. The serious argument is taking place at Talk:Islamic calendar. According to SPACKlick, an image that creates a fictitious scene for propaganda purposes is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. According to him, an image created with nefarious intent can be used with impunity. So it's OK for us to daub our houses with swastikas then. Then he says it's OK to use the caption because it follows the thinking of one source (which it doesn't). So the opposing views of dozens of experts are irrelevant. Finally, he makes the amazing claim that there is a consensus to exclude the good sources in favour of the bad.

When I point out that this is exactly the "phantom consensus" being discussed here I get abuse. All this was explained yesterday afternoon in great detail (not by me) and since then the advocates of crappy editing have been silent. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors should look at the full discussions rather than assuming the IP has accurately summarized the situation. They have a history of getting things "slightly wrong". --NeilN 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lydiafox19

I would like to know what is the deal with this user's edits (Lydiafox19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The user has made two kinds of edits so far:

• Addition or changes of information in articles about Eurovision contests;
• Creation of pseudo-articles at Secretoxy, Talk:Laurity and Talk:Rossinaya.

Strangely, the two talk pages have an extensive history of edits by unregistered users. Some of the IP users also edited Eurovision articles (and nothing else), one created Talk:Moldovie.

Really, what gives? (I think that all articles that have been edited by these users/IP addresses ought to be checked for possible errors introduced into them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• And the user re-created the non-article as Rossinaya. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

IP address won't stop vandalizing

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

74.62.14.55 (talk · contribs) won't stop vandalizing the talk page of Armenian Genocide. The IP has been blocked before, and is vandalizing again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:AIV instead. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Greatink

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

I think it would be appropriate to indef block this user for paid editing, which is a violation of the TOS. The user's contributions have been almost entirely to the articles Goldstein, Hill & West Architects and Whitehall Interiors NYC, a firm connected to GH&W. Until moments ago, when I disconnected it as a cross-space redirect, their user page redirected to the GH&W article.

The GW&H article was recently tagged as overly promotional, and I heavily edited it to reduce it. I believe that the Whitehall Interiors article was speedily deleted at one point (an admin will have to check). I made it a redirect to the GW&H article recently, and today the article -- heavily promotional in tone -- was recreated by Greatink.

The name of the user "Greatink" strongly implies that they are a PR firm (or person) dedicated to getting "great ink" for their clients, and a Google search confirms that the existence of "Great Ink Full Service Public Relations for a Digital Age", among whose listed clients are GW&H.

As for the articles, GW&H is clearly a notable firm, but the interior design firm is probably not. I'm also concerned about all the other clients listed on the Great Ink webpage -- have they done Misplaced Pages services for those clients as well, under less obvious user names? (It's a lot of articles to check.)

I believe an indef block to User:Greatink -- and any other users which can be found to be connected to it (I'd suggest a CU, but can't file an SPI because Ihave no idea who the other users may be) -- is appropriate to protect the encyclopedia from promotional editing, and ask that it be applied. BMK (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Links: Greatink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Definitely seems to be an SPA, yeah! --IJBall (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the Google results, and the "Great Ink" website, I'd say not just a SPA, but also a paid editor. BMK (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please be able to call me to discuss? 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatink (talk • contribs)

I don't believe that will be possible, or appropriate. All discussion on this topic should take place on-Wiki, where all editors can see it, and shoudl be centralized here. If you have something to say or ask, this is the place to do it. BMK (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. BMK (talk). I'm not sure what makes the GHWA page promotional, as opposed to long-time existing pages such as Joseph Chetrit The Carlyle Group Michel Abboud SOMA SOMA https://en.wikipedia.org/SOMA_(architects) Morphosis Architects YIMBY BuroHappold Engineering. It is supported by a number of articles that, as you said, make it notable. I would be happy to work on the page with less "promotional language." I'm just really struggling to determine the difference between GHWA's page, and the others mentioned. Please let me know. Greatink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Here's your version of the lede section of the GW&H article before another editor reduced the promotionalism:

Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is a New York City-based architecture firm dedicated to the creation of the highest quality, multi-use buildings. GHWA is a collaboration of design professionals deeply experienced in the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures, and multi-use complexes. Together, the team has designed many of the most prominent structures in the New York metropolitan area.

Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West, the company’s founders, have a legacy of excellence in design stretching back over 25 years. The GHWA team has the vision and skills necessary to create bold solutions that respond to the urban environment. They are market sensitive, pragmatic and attuned to the forces that drive successful development. Its staff of more than 100 is well suited to meet the rigorous demands and schedules of the development process, while allowing for the personal participation of the partners on all projects.

Current clients include such well known entities as Extell Development Company, The Witkoff Group, The Trump Organization, Silverstein Properties, Tishman Speyer Properties, and The Lightstone Group.

Another editor changed that to this:

Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is an architecture firm in Manhattan founded in 2009 by former partners at Costas Kondylis and Partners, principals Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West. GHWA focuses on the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures and multi-use complexes. The firm and its work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

and you then (gradually) re-edited it into this:

Goldstein, Hill & West Architects (GHWA) is a New York City based architecture firm dedicated to the creation of the highest quality multi-use buildings. GHWA is a collaboration of design professionals deeply experienced in the planning and design of high-rise residential and hospitality buildings, retail structures and multi-use complexes. Together the team has designed many of the most prominent structures in the New York City metropolitan area.

Alan Goldstein, L. Stephen Hill and David West, the company’s founders, have a legacy of excellence in design stretching back over 25 years, and have created bold solutions for the urban environment. Clients include Extell Development Company, The Witkoff Group, The Trump Organization, Silverstein Properties, Tishman Speyer and The Lightstone Group.

So, please, let's not have any guff about your "strugging" to understand what "promotional language" means. You're a public relations professional, you know precisely what it means. BMK (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Whitehall Interiors NYC is much less promotional than before, but it still has a list of projects on buildings that may not be notable, so IMO, there's still a little viewpoint-pushing in the article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I only removed the low-hanging fruit from that section, the private residences that were not identified, and therefore could not be verified. Except for two, the others were commercial projects and had citations, but I didn't look closely into them. Other editors can take a look and see what they think. BMK (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Greatink, please see our conflict of interest guideline WP:COI for our requirements regarding paid editing, and WP:NPOV about the neutral tone and content that our articles are required to follow. I agree with BMK that you sound disingenuous claiming to not understand what promotional editing is. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially since a read of their talk page shows that the issue of promotional language has been brought to their attention before. BMK (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To sum it up, we've got violations of WP:Terms of use (paid editing without declaration), WP:NPOV (failure to maintain a neutral point of view), WP:PROMO (deliberately editing to promote commercial enterprises), WP:COI (undeclared conflict of interest), and WP:Username (using a promotional username). BMK (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Greatink" matches the name of a PR company in NYC. I have blocked the account on that basis. I think the article Whitehall Interiors NYC qualifies for A7 speedy deletion, and in fact it was deleted as such in December 2014 based on my nomination. Prior to that, a more promotional version was deleted in October 2014 as G11 (straight advertising). Thank you for your research, BMK. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_X
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CollXtion_I
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catch_(Allie_X_song)

WordSeventeen is continuously misrepresenting guidelines and persists that no primary source of information, even without interpretation, is not acceptable. Does not even bothering to check what he's saying; he keeps calling pages with over a thousand characters "trivial mentions", and will not cede to anyone's argument against that. Keeps calling archive.org radio interview archives and album art archives self-published material or unreliable/unverifiable (as evidenced in some of the brief summaries for reason of editing pages.) He doesn't even bother replying to me now. SanctuaryX (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the first of those diffs (it was too treacly for me to want to look at the rest) so this should be taken as a throwaway comment not resulting from a careful examination. It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article. I don't think WordSeventeen's approach as described by SanctuaryX is ideal since I'd say there's a neutrality problem rather than a sourcing problem per se with those edits. The stuff I saw isn't contentious in the BLP sense so I don't think overboard demands for sourcing provenance are called for. The issue is that secondary sources document not only the factuality of the info presented, but also its notability (notability is what makes it encyclopedic instead of WP:IINFO). Under strict interpretation of the WP:RS criteria, primary sources are ok if they fill in details of topics whose notability is confirmed by secondary sources existing about them, that should also be cited. In practice if a primary source has something non-contentious that readers are likely to find relevant, I'm ok with using them without a secondary source in place, as long as the material's presentation in the article is brief and neutral. If that article were written more neutrally I'd say it is ok to use bits of those interviews as long as the info is uncontentious and there's not significant questions about authenticity or relevance. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is I just need to make it a bit less promotional sounding? Does that mean I should undo all the edits he did to remove citations etc and then fix the gushiness? The second diff only highlighted that I an archive.org page (for archiving of cover art) was removed for being "a primary source" (even though it wasn't). So which article did you find to be not brief and neutral? The page for Allie X, CollXtion I, or Catch? Or all of them? And so do I just let the AfD proposal play out? I tried to include as many secondary source information as possible, and I tried to keep the primary source things to straight-forward facts. SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

1) As mentioned I only looked at the first diff, which is about Allie X. 2) All articles should be written neutrally, which means not promotional at all, not "a bit less promotional". 3) I didn't look at the edit history except for the one diff I mentioned, but the current state of the article is in my opinion bad, full of irrelevant info like what brand of energy drinks the person likes. So yes, I'd say that that should be cleaned up. 4) Looking at the diff about the archive.org cover art, I'd say the main problem is that the archive.org link doesn't actually document the statement that sites it (it doesn't say when or where Allie X began her career). If the cover actually says that (say on the liner notes) and the photo showed it, I'd say it is ok under WP:ABOUTSELF since that particular info is not promotional etc. 4a) As a separate matter, if an album is notable (WP:NMUSIC) then we generally want the cover art to be uploaded to the Misplaced Pages server rather than linked from an external site. 5) If AfD's are in progress, then they will likely be decided completely on the basis of secondary RS, so the best thing to do is add more of those to the articles. Cleaning up the cruft is a mostly-separate issue but of course that should be done too. I hope this helps. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice 50.0.205.75 that you mention, "It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article." Another editor User:Miniapolis at the AFD for CollXtion I at stated "Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)" and to quote User:Miniapolis again this time at the AFD for Catch (Allie X song) at comments, "Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. User:Miniapolis". I find it ironic that the OP of this thread first named the thread AllieX but soon changed it to "Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?" In my view it is the publicity blitzer or blitzers that are attempting to game the system, and get free advertising right during the window when the debut EP is supposed to be released. For some reason the release date keeps getting pushed back. See here: . Perhaps the publicity blitzers are waiting for the AFD's to close and get this messy ANI locked down. Who knows? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is but that was beyond presumptuous. Stop whatever your lttle vendetta is against me, please. The only reason I changed the name is because I misread what the guide said to name your complaint as. I reviewed to make sure I followed protocol. And for your information the EP is already released. Now stop playing the victim, and start following your own constantly spewed Assume Good Faith.SanctuaryX (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Now the OP SanctuaryX is in violation of WP:BULLY by the use of hidden text in an unacceptable fashion on the article Allie X. Please see this diff here: OP has left hidden messages within the source code that say in short, DO NOT REMOVE, DO NOT DELETE, and DO NOT DELETE. The full hidden messages can be viewed in the diff here: . The OP has even gone so far as to leave a hidden message that says, VICE Do not remove. Have contacted VICE editor to dissuade erroneous claims of unreliability. --> That is really a little scary. The OP has WP:OWN and WP:BULLY issues with the Allie X article to the point of being disruptive at the Allie X article, as well as its current AFD, and also at the other three articles which are cited at the top of this ani report, and their respective current AFD's. I would ask that the OP user SanctuaryX be blocked to prevent further disruption at the three articles and their respective AFDs. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realize WP:BULLY removing them now. I apologize, that was in very poor taste. Though did I really violate it?"If there is any information that is constantly added, removed, or modified in any other way, and there may be a better alternative, hidden text may be used to let others know of that alternative. In this case, it should mention the alternative and point to a discussion, if one exists." I just didn't want you removing it again since it complied with WP:ABOUTSELF, which is something I noted and you failed to mention as well. Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you. I just hope that whatever administrator sees what's really going on here. Though I really do not appreciate you leaving out portions of that quoted text to make yourself look better. And there's nothing scary about me asking the editor of Vice magazine if they fact check, etc. And I have no OWN issues, anyone who looks around a bit will see I have told you many times I claim no owner ship. I poorly chose the word "my" in reference to an article to describe that I had substantially contributed. There was no intent of claiming ownership. I've told you this at least five times now. Please get over it.SanctuaryX (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I have bundled all three AfDs (not to mention !voting "keep"). And although I agree that SanctuaryX didn't use quite the proper method in ensuring that the articles would be retained (and I think they will), you really should let the whole thing go, WordSeventeen. That being said, we should let the AfD run its course; I don't think there's anything else ANI can do about this issue. Erpert 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: @WordSeventeen: @Ansh666: I feel as if wordseventeen is in violation of WP:HA and WP:BULLY. He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again. It was VERY blatantly stated that they had been consolidated, and by Erpert, NOT ME. This random person, Ansh666, reinstated the AfD on Catch and CollXtion I for no reason. I have no evidence that Ansh666 is a sockpuppet but that makes me curious. This is getting to be ridiculous and very demeaning. I feel like WordSeventeen needs to be blocked from these articles. He is very clearly singling me out for no good reason. Please, someone who can actually do something, stop this nonsense. I am literally begging. Stop this before it gets any more deranged.SanctuaryX (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Even when related AfDs are bundled, you generally aren't supposed to alter the AfD template, SanctuaryX—although I do understand what you were trying to do, and I do also see that it wasn't done maliciously. That being said...WordSeventeen, you really do need to leave him/her alone. (BTW, I doubt Ansh666 is a sock of anyone; s/he was just returning the template to its previous state.) Erpert 08:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

in short form here, diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&diff=655786072&oldid=655700312

Also, please review this statement here at ani from user SanctuaryX:

He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

Yup, " if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

It is just more disruption caused by user sanctuaryX. I posted a warning about ALTERING a AFD template. Here is the warning on her page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to ALTER Articles for deletion notices, as you did at Catch Allie X (song), you may be blocked from editing. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not alter Articles for deletion notices from articles. as you did with Catch (Allie X song) Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead.

At the Catch (Allie X song) article the user SanctuaryX altered the AFD tag, changing the article name, date, and timestamp.

Later, User Ansh666 edited and adjusted the time stamp and numerical date to the original, and left the edit summary of (replacing tag) See the diff here: WordSeventeen (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) diff

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: @WordSeventeen: Ok I'm saying the point is I never DID touch the AfD. It was still there. I did nothing. And if you notice his diff doesntactually link to anything . Look at the diff. This is my last edit compared to Ansh666. The AfD notice is STILL THERE and it is unchanged when compared to the original AfD nomination by WordSeventeen. ] This next edit is WordSeventeens last edit compared to Ansh666's to the page. Notice that its got the same information on the notice as mine. ] And finally notice on this last diff that his first edit to the page, this edit is the one in which he nomjnated it for deletion and it is compared to Ansh666's. The AfD notice was never changed by anyone except Ansh666. ] His behavior is obviously malicious and full of lies, because while he could have made an honest mistake with not including the diff, if he had actually ever LOOKED AT THE DIFFS he wouldve noticed I didnt change ANYTHING on the AfD.He is now trying to extort me by saying I am personally attacking him on this noticeboard. He is again telling me to stop under threat of being blocked from editig on wikipedia. Well guess what? I'm not letting you extort me into letting you get away with your bad behavior. And he keeps cherry picking what I said. Like saying above in his quote that "If I ever try to remove the AfD for Catch or CollXtion I again," as the whole quote, even though immediately after I said that, I refuted that I ever edited it and explicitly stated the only edits ever dome to the AfD were done by Erpert, NOT by me. He is trying to slander me now. and Ansh666 didnt just change things for no reason, he also reopened each individual AfD and made them separate again. Why is no one stopping this? I haven't done anything wrong and everyone is just letting him try and screw me over.SanctuaryX (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with editor called Flyer22

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

Flyer22 has continuously slandered me and accused me of being a sockpuppet (without any evidence). This is harassment, and frankly, I don't like it. The only redress that is now available to me is for you to block him for violation Misplaced Pages's guidelines on harassment. Thank you very much. Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Like I noted at Jhamilton303's talk page, Jhamilton303 (talk · contribs) is the recently WP:Blocked Cali11298 (talk · contribs), and I am in the process of starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on that matter. For anyone who has reasonably decent detective skills, it should not be difficult to see that Jhamilton303 is Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a certain quackiness I must admit. The timing between the blocking of the first account and the creation of the second, and the overlap in article topic and manner in which they interact with others as well as other markers make this look pretty bad. I'd like to see a checkuser report on this one. Please link the SPI report when created so we can follow and comment as needed. Thanks! --Jayron32 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow.... What is this? Blaming the victim? I don't know who this Cali person is. What ever happened to benefit of the doubt? Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely. I doubt that you're providing much benefit to Misplaced Pages. --Jayron32 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I swear on my grandfather's grave, I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET, AND I HAVE NEVER MET CALI11298. I'm just an ordinary Wikipedian going about my business. Jayron, I'm serious. Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that I am more than sure the admin here have heard the swearing on the grandfathers, mothers, sisters, cousins, brothers, ect... grave song and dance here before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Jhamilton303, please apologize to your grandparents for embarrassing them. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick block needed, long-term abuse case

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

Special:Contributions/58.252.167.103 has picked up where blocked editor Special:Contributions/61.156.3.166 left off in harassing me. This long-term vandal is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal. He uses open proxies and compromised servers; this new one is a recently reported spam account – a typical tactic of the guy. Binksternet (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how I've harassed you on wikipedia administrator's talkpage. 58.252.167.103 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. IP-hopper, the world is full of proxies, but this carry-on won't profit you. Bishonen | talk 07:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen and Nakon for dealing with this guy. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Another IP from same country, please check . Pinging Binksternet so that he can update his list. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Chrisdecorte

Since his arrival here in 2013, Chrisdecorte (talk · contribs) has been using Misplaced Pages almost exclusively to promote his own self-published work in mathematics. (Some of many examples: , plus dozens of edits in his own userspace.) Today he's using Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge to solicit money for his mathematical hobby .

Since 2013, three different users (including myself) have explained to him four times that Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for publishing or discussing original research, and we have asked him to stop his self-promotion ( ). He has never responded.

Chris is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I suggest his editing privileges be removed until he agrees to stop promoting himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To date, this user has made three (3) contributions in article main-space, two of which promote his own work and the other is trivial. I tend to agree with the nominator. WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging David Eppstein who's probably in a good position to keep an eye out should this person reemerge in some other guise. EEng (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I agree, NOTHERE, should be blocked. But at least he's mostly keeping his original research out of article space, I guess? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(Invited by Psychonaut) I haven't researched his edits since I interacted with him (whenever that was), but I still don't see any which are not promoting use of his own unpublished research. At least he's staying out of article-space, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Contributions deleted on Szekely Land (again)

Fakirbakir deleted the contribution mentioning that Szekely land became part of Romania in 1918. Please see details https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655523554&oldid=655522794

It's the 2nd time this statement is deleted. It's perfectly referenced and the info is already validated on other wiki pages (Szekely Land is located by the very page under discussion in Transylvania and the page on Transylvania states that Transylvania united with Romania in 1918). The references posted together with the statement on the Szkeley Land page are links to: - original documents of the Declaration of Union and English translation (Romanian archives/National Institute of Heritage); - original documents of acceptance of the Union by the King of Romania and English translation (National Institute of Heritage); - link to History of Transylvania/XIV. REVOLUTIONS AND NATIONAL MOVEMENTS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE MONARCHY (1918–1919) by Zoltán Szász on the Hungarian Electronic Library; - link to Elemér Illyés / National Minorities in Romania on hungaryhistory.com (Corvinus Library); - link to the book of prof. Laszlo Kurti (teaching at the Miskolc University in Hungary), The Remote Borderland (published by the State University of New York Press). To all this Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting, "the sources don't state that "Szekely Land became a part of Romania in 1918", a "proclamation" is not an internationally recognized treaty". However Szekely Land is part of Transylvania (which he surely knows, as it's stated on the page) and the significance of a proclamation is clearly not under discussion (we have the references from both Hungarian and Romanian sources mentioned - and wikipedia - stating when the moment of the Union took place, Austro-Hungarian administration was removed by the Romanian Army, border was established and he should have read this before deletion).

Fakirbakir also deleted the statement about the area of the counties Covasna, Harghita and Mures. Please details https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655659306&oldid=655659069

It's the 2nd time this is deleted too. Again Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting "(totally irrelevant)". However the only information on the page about the area of the land is an estimation from a disputed source (James Minahan, see debate on the talk page). As the Szekely Land is located by Minahan in the counties mentioned their area is very relevant as it's the only official/reliable information that could give an idea about the size of the land. The same principle was used on the page in respect with the population, where the population of Covasna, Harghita and Mures from the census is stated together with an estimation for the Szekely Land.

As Fakirbakir has deleted correct, relevant and referenced info without an actual reason (his notes are generic, contradicting the facts and based on personal opinion only - no references) please revert his changes mentioned above and warn him about deletion. Please notice, Fakirbakir doesn't use to answer to me on his talk page as I have already contacted unsuccessfully on other subject.

Thank you. ID Idsocol (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Idsocol, there is a big, bright warning at the top of the page when you added this case that states you need to notify editors you're bringing a complaint against which you failed to do. You need to do this even if they have failed to answer your notices in the past. I've placed a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. Please remember to do so in the future. Liz 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! I did put a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. It's under the one to which he didn't answer. I've just checked and it's there. ID Idsocol (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the page Szekely Land by malicious editing my contribution (said Transylvania was occupied by Romanian & Soviet army instead of liberated) and supported this by my references which were not saying this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655811951&oldid=655800923

He also reedited the info about the Union with Romania without any references and based only on his own opinion (despite the dedicated pages for this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/Transylvania where he could debate). I think there more than 3 edits in a short period of time. Idsocol (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

merely promotional userpage

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

User Dr.prashant mishra (talk · contribs) seems to (ab)use Misplaced Pages for self-promotion, see his interesting creation Misplaced Pages:Dr.prashant mishra. In addition, this user seems to operate 2 accounts on :en, see Er.Prashant Mishra (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Vanity pages for himself and a few of his colleagues deleted. User:Er… blocked. User:Dr… being watched and I will; block if any repetition. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock/Meatpuppetry at Talk:MyWikiBiz

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

See Special:Contributions/Set_the_record_right. Evading scrutiny on a talk page is not helpful, particularly to attack another editing. Expecting good behavior seems overly optimistic. There are several options - page protection, an SPI, or just some additional watchful eyes. I request the latter. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pointing to clearly-linked evidence that an editor is working with a POV conflict with the subject, is not an "attack", Joe. Anyone can see that Coretheapple for the past 5 days or so has been on a mission to hyper-edit articles related to Gregory Kohs, and he has a stated animosity toward Mr. Kohs. - Set the record right (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, and blocked. This account is WP:NOTHERE to help but to further an outside interest antithetical to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note also User:76.24.16.127 who has performed the same general function at Wikipediocracy, albeit claiming, credibly to be User:Dan Murphy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

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

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Misplaced Pages that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Misplaced Pages as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. They do not even understand the basics, and are brainwashed/too emotionally connected with these topics to edit sensibly. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  I might consider restricting the ban to main space if the user adheres to his comment below and if others agree. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question: at his block log I see only "17:58, 22 July 2005 Angela unblocked JoeM (Jimbo has unbanned JoeM. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026676.html)" Where can I see the original block and any discussion explaining the reason for the block? Also, what's up with Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of JoeM? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban at this time, based on JoeM's response below. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Response

I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Misplaced Pages exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Misplaced Pages's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

The community forbids the editor, JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you are not in a position to judge the reason he posted as he did and whether or not it was due to emotional instability, and you should not be doing so. Squinge (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith, that was the best I could come up with. You got any better motives? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this time based on JoeM's response above, which essentially seems to be a voluntary topic ban for an unspecified period. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but ease of enforcement should not be our priority. Our priority should be getting an editor to edit constructively with the best good faith we can muster and with the minimum of sanctions. And if they're willing to do what the community wants anyway, there's no need for force. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think that we've given him enough rope? This is merely a fallback to prevent him from drawing all the rope. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Misplaced Pages have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  A one-day block wouldn't be appropriate if he's not editing problematically now, as blocks are only for preventative purposes and it wouldn't be preventing anything. (And there's no such thing as a "block on topics mentioned" anyway - you're either blocked or you're not.) Squinge (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from archive. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk)
• Oppose per Joe's response. You cannot hold what happened 12 years ago against him - if anything, I'm stunned he remembers his handle and password. What Joe does need is a firm warning (which he has received and acknowledged the lesson learned here) and, in my opinion, a WP:MENTOR. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by Niteshift36

I have been creating a number of new articles. The vast majority of them are related to african americans. A certain group of individuals have bee nominating them for deletion to which I would debate to keep them. At this time, they are not the issue. Apparently, one individual took notice and he won't nominate an article for deletion that I wrote but he certainly votes to have a large amount of them deleted. , , , , and , . In a short amount of time, he has stalked my profile and edited on a decent amount of articles that I have written on. . His behavior has been noticed and excessive sarcasm and rudeness , to which he readily admits , He admits to rude behavior . He uses WP:BULLY. I admit to not being the most knowledgeable wikipedian, but I do want to make it better! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry CrazyAces, but you're wasting your time. I've been involved with the Martial Arts project for a long time. I was less active for a while, but when I returned, I became involved again. When I noticed your persistent pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating articles with no intention to make them meet the standards, I looked at other ones. Have I been sarcastic? Yes. (and that's without the alleged "admission" that wasn't) It's hard to not be when you falsely accuse people of racism. It's harder when editors attempt to help you produce better products, use reliable sources and actually improve and your response is "I create so others can work." . Fact is, I haven't nominated a single one of your article for deletion. I did try to help you in the beginning and you displayed a flippant "who cares" attitude. I've voted in other AfD's that you aren't related to in the same time period and edited many other articles you aren't involved with. This is a giant waste of my time. I'll respond to legit responses from other editors, but I'm not going to do a back and forth with you here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Addendum: The title "noticed by others" is improper. Second, let's look at some of that "stalking":

1. Ron Hubbard: Nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
2. Greg Baines: Nom by another. No consensus.
3. Joe Marciano: nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
4. Robey Reed: nom by another. CA and an IP voted keep. Article deleted.
5. Natalia Baron: nom by another. CA came to the discussion after me and also voted to delete.
6. Tyson Jennette: Nom by another. AfD in progress.
7. Shotokan Karate Union: Nom by another. CA and a new SPA voting to keep. In progress.

Again, none of those were nominated by me. One article was a no consensus. The others are in progress or deleted, consistent with my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Even here he just referred to me as CrazyAces . He states that I said people were racist and that was blatantly false. Even admins stated that it wasn't the case. . I pointed a statistic that has been called WP:WORLDVIEW. He admits to his rude behavior. I don't own articles, so if people want to change it. I rarely make a big deal about it. Some people work on DRV, some on AFC, some on AFD's, etc. I like creating articles. His numerous blocks for the same behavior displays a pattern of behavior. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• CrazyAces, in your SPI attempt, you made an issue about "MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once" and that the one "who happens to be white" was the one that survived AfD. I see you intimating a racial motive there. I wasn't the only one. Mdtemp read it that was, as did the uninvolved Invector . The fact that no admins got involved in the ANI thread about that very issue is luck on your part. As for my block record, yeah, there were some early on and a couple a year ago. A single one of those had to do with civility. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CrazyAces489. Userpages contain a "Contributions" link for a reason: people are supposed to be able follow the contributions of other users. That's not a crime. On the contrary, to check up on the editing of a problematic user is a good deed, and helps the encyclopedia; admins do it all the time. Keeping an eye on a user with a pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating non-viable articles, as Niteshift has been doing with your contributions, is a good thing. It's just rude to accuse people of "stalking" for doing that. Unfounded accusations of bullying are even ruder.

You say the new articles you have created that have been nominated for deletion "are not the issue". Yes, I'm afraid they are, because when you take somebody to ANI, your own behavior and competence will come under scrutiny as well. Since early February, you have created 7 biographical articles that have been deleted because they were non-notable and unsourced, and I don't know how many more that are currently up for deletion and mainly trending towards delete. (Perhaps User:Niteshift36 can help us with a ballpark figure.) You also have created a frivolous SPI in an obvious attempt at retaliation against several users who have been reasonably nominating your articles for deletion.

All this has created a lot of work for other users, and your carefree attitude about that ("I create so others can work") suggests you're not prepared to learn nor slow down. I think you're here to help the encyclopedia, but your attitude is actually unhelpful. Please do your article creation through Articles for creation from now on. It exists to help people with just the kinds of problems your creations have. You say above that you're not the most knowledgeable wikipedian but you do want to make it better. Please show it by doing as I suggest here. If you continue to create non-viable articles directly in mainspace, I'm afraid I'll have to consider blocking you for disruptive editing and willful timewasting. To make sure you see this warning, I'll put a few words about it on your page as well. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC).

P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC).

• You're right, it wasn't appropriate. I've removed it while mulling the irony of CA repeating it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeating harmful comments can sometimes be a bad idea. Other times though, it's the easiest way to explain what the problem is. This case seems to fall much more in to the later example. Whatever else CrazyAces may or may or not have done, you really shouldn't be mulling of the irony of CA being forced to repeat offensive and inappropriate comments on your part to point out that you did so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Jtydog inserting OR material despite being warned

Alexbrn and Jtydog have introduced Original Research (repeatedly) into Scrambler therapy, despite being warned that the material is OR.

• At 08:08 April 8th, Alexbrn first introduced the OR here. This material is OR because neither of the sources cited discuss the strength of the evidence - they simply say whether the Scrambler system is effective or not. Please note, there has been some discussion about the actual terms used ("good" or "strong") but this is a red-herring - the point remains that the 2 sources do NOT discuss the strengths of the research, and that any comment on the strength of research has been arrived at by the editor, i.e. it is OR.

• At 16:08, April 9th, I made it clear why this is OR material.

• At 16:21, Alexbrn described the sentence as "paraphrasing", however, the error of this way of thinking was explained to them at 16:42 here.

• At 17:41, I removed the OR material leaving the edit summary "Original Research".

• At 17:43, Alexbrn reverted to include the OR text.

• At 17:48, it was again explained this was OR..

• At 18:16, I again removed the OR leaving the edit summary "Deleting original research"

• At 18:19, Jtydog reverted to include the OR material.

These are extremely experienced editors and for them to intentionally and repeatedly introduce Original Research in a medical article against WP:MEDRS guideleines and in such a disruptive way is extremely serious. They should both be issued with at least warning and a more serious action against Alexbrn as this was a repeated action on their part.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) __DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Two observations relevant to this posting:

• Jytdog was not notified (I've done it now).
• The OP appears to be canvassing.

Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow..this is so extremely misrepresentative. Jytdog has asked me not to communicate with them on their Talkpage. I was aware that raising an ANI meant I had to inform the users. I informed you. I was unsure what to do regarding Jytdog so I immediately contacted the teahouse page and got an answer. This is all shown here. It also shows that at 20:14 I asked the answering editor to contact Jtydog about the ANI. At 21:41, Jtydog was informed of the ANI. You are misrepresenting me completely. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this sounds like pretty harsh sanctions you're suggesting for what seems like an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The abstract of the first article says "further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness." I think one could argue either way over whether that is equivalent to "no good data is available to determine whether it is effective". Couldn't you guys split the difference and paraphrase the source as "Additional trial data is needed to determine whether this is effective?". Have we gotten that polarized here? Formerly 98 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggested that we summarise with "mixed results" here. Apparently this was not OK and Jytdog reverted it.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A small pilot study specifically tested the MC5-A Calmare device on 16 patients with refractory CIPN. The device, which is hypothesized to provide ‘‘nonpain” information to the cutaneous nerves to block the effect of pain, showed an improvement in pain scores (59% reduction at 10 days, with no reported adverse effects. However, a placebo-controlled, randomized, small (14 total patients) trial, published only as an abstract, was unable to demonstrate a benefit for scrambler therapy. "Mixed results" is as OR as what you complain about. You have a pilot study (apparently uncontrolled, since it doesn't say it was) looking at only ten days out, versus a randomized, controlled study. There are some good grammatical explanations for the word however in the userbox on my userpage; pls have a look at them. "Mixed results" is just as OR as what you claim in others' edits. Next time, pls, take this somewhere other than ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that revolves around whether the sourcing's discussion of the quality of the evidence supporting the treatment can be fairly summarized as "good/strong" or not. I do not see any evidence on the Talk page of bad behavior by the accused. How is this low-level content dispute an incident that needs Administrator attention? Where have you tried to resolve the dispute using one of the WP:DR pathways, like asking at the relevant WikiProject, using WP:3O, WP:DRN or the like? You appear to have gone right from a little discussion at the article Talk page right to ANI.

For the record: I've !voted at the AFD for the Scrambler article, and have been in a disagreement with Chrissy at an RFC they started at Talk:Foie gras, but have not been involved in this particular content dispute. Zad68 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect we have a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion here, mixed with a failed AGF-ometer, because what Dr Chrissy proposes instead looks SYNTH/OR-ish from here. The way around this is wording like that proposed by Formerly, or: "There is insufficient evidence for its use in treating neuropathic pain", which should avoid the tempest in a teacup about the word "good". This polarization/battleground is unhelpful-- this is fixable any number of ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia - I'm not sure what you mean by SYNTH/OR-ish - please could you elaborate?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you AGF, everyone is just trying to paraphrase. You want to do it one way, they want to do it another way. Your way is no less OR-ish than the text you object to. There is no good evidence; finding a way to say that is the problem, but claiming "mixed results" when the randomized placebo-controlled study found no benefit is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not paraphrasing. The 2 studies made no comment on the quality of the research. If you are now saying that certain types of study are more powerful than others, then you are also guilty of OR. How do I know you have the qualifications to make such a judgement of scientific research?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the sources bothered to talk about things like what kind of study each was and how many participants they included? In fact at WP:MEDASSESS--right in the WP:MEDRS guideline itself--Misplaced Pages provides a hierarchy of study quality, see where it says "The best evidence comes primarily from..." following through "Roughly in descending order of quality...". Zad68 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that editors on here are allowed to judge the quality of scientific research and make statements about this in WP articles?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Search me what the big issue is. The paraphrase is good (in mine or others' variants of it). DrChrissy alone insists on calling it OR (wrongly in my view, but - as I've said - I'd be happy to open up the discussion at WT:MED) and has I believe breached 3RR trying to zap it. So if there's a behaviour issue to be considered, maybe it might WP:BOOMERANG back to the OP ... ? I like Sandy's wording too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here. Please stick to the content of the ANI I have raised against you. Please show where the sources you used discuss the strength of the evidence about the efficacy of the system - what you wrote was your own interpretation of the sources and is therefore OR. This, and the repeated inclusion of the OR are the only issues of this discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, at ANI you don't get to control whose behavior gets investigated, see WP:BOOMERANG. Did you breach 3RR? Zad68 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here? Holy cow, DrChrissy, we all have more relevant things to do than settle playground squabbles over semantics. If you did breach 3RR, and then brought it to ANI, that says ... something ... at least about the respect you have for the time involved in the rest of the people who have to help sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

I have ultimate respect for the people on here. We are all responsible for how we devote our time to the project. If you do not have the time to participate here, then of course you are free to go elsewhere. This is not a problem about semantics. It is about an editor that made up a phrase in their head and decided to put that into a WP article and cite 2 sources to it as if they supported their OR__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, editors posting here (a noticeboard primarily for examining bad behaviour) should expect to have their own behaviour looked-at too. I don't believe my paraphrase was OR and have offered multiple times to widen the consensus at the Project noticeboard if you still disagreed. Meanwhile, it is you who has been advocating - on that same article's talk page - sourcing material to search engine results ... so really, this "OR" complaint is pretty rich. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I was hardly "advocating" sourcing material to search engines, I was discussing this on a Talk page! Please comment on the subject of this ANI - why is your input to the article not OR? As the editor who introduced the material into the article, the onus is on you to defend why it should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes: you're wrong. Frankly I'm sick of facing your barrage of misguided inquisition; dealing with it is a waste of time. I'll let you burn up the patience of others instead. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for your contributions.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is also not uncommon that complainants are being pursued and harassed by people who overly believe in MEDRS as the correct way to do it. The Banner talk 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, being harrassed by application of a Misplaced Pages guideline! Umm, aren't we here because DrChrissy decided to go to ANI with a trivial disagreement about what constitutes WP:OR? Looking over the history on the Talk page, one can see that there are some fairly serious Talk page guidelines by DrChrissy that could be contributing to the polarization of this discussion because the debate is being personalized.

• Accusations of bullying that violate WP:TALK: "Jytdog Now that you have removed the completely inappropriate COI template you imposed to try and bully another editor, perhaps you would turn your mind to answering my question about why Sparadeo F, Kaufman C, D'Amato S (2012) is not MEDRS compliant?"
• Suggestions that other editors are trying to "out" him. " Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)"

Formerly 98 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am completely at a loss to see what this has to do with the repeated inclusion of Original Research__DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that this ANI complaint, along with your behavior on the article Talk pages, constitues WP:Battleground behavior, and makes collaborative editing more difficult if not impossible. In fact, these personal attacks were even copied over to a discussion about a completely unrelated article.

• Proposed 24 hour block for DrChrissy for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, including violation of Talk page guidelines and rushing to ANI with a trivial disagreement about the interpretation of WP:OR Formerly 98 22:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that I do not wish that this ANI descends into mud-slinging about editors' behaviour. I would like it to remain focussed on the topic - repeated inclusion of OR despite warnings. However, if this line of diversion continues, I will provide evidence that one of the editors in the ANI is currently operating under a warning for their incivility and has used some of the most offensive behaviour I have ever encountered on wikipedia. __DrChrissy (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ermmmm...could the proposer please sign this - or are they wishing to remain anonymous.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: These edits certainly look very disruptive at a first glance. They were made:

1. After the article was proposed for deletion
2. Before the AfD dicussion (which is still ongoing) was concluded
3. Without any sort of prior consensus on the talk page

Since the AfD discussion has not yet concluded, I do not see the point in making massive, controversial edits to the article at the moment. It looks disruptive enough so that a temporary block for those who nominated the article for deletion and repeatedly removed the bulk of its content may be necessary. -A1candidate 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate, this edit you just made at Scrambler therapy that introduces medical claims in to the article based on non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, among other problems, was wildly inappropriate and clearly against consensus. Zad68 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Zad, your posting clearly does not belong here, but on the Talk page of the Article concerned. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, this talk page comment is ... well ... bizarre. Regardless the outcome of this article, could you please reduce such talk page behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Which part of the comment are you referring to?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, while SandyGeorgia can clarify if she meant something else, I thought your commentary such as "the website (which no doubt will be removed from the article soon)" and "Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)- I don't think she would really like being described as Trivia." at the article talk page was unnecessary and unconstructive. I too would advise you to refrain from engaging in such behaviour in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at this diff , it seems unusual that the refs previously used to claim benefit are later being utilized by a different editor to claim no benefit at all. Is there a noticeboard for looking at the specific references being utilized to see if the editors are actually accurately reporting what is in those references?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, WT:MED as I have repeatedly said. (Or any intelligent person can read & decide for themselves: really there is no need to burn hard-pressed medical editors time with basic stuff like this). Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please refrain from answering questions not directed at you, if you are a "hard-pressed medical editor" and cannot answer it simply and respectfully. These sideways comments make reading through this information extra unpleasant. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And it is exactly because those ever so hard-pressed medical editors do not have the time to deal with basic stuff like this, is why I raised this ANI. I felt that repeated introduction of OR is so "basic" (please read "fundamentally flawed") that it should be brought to a wider audience, rather than encroach on the time of our hard-pressed medical "experts". By the way, how does one get onto this list of "medical editors"?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see that you have stayed. Thanks - I have looked but I can't see what I have to do to be called a "medical editor". I thought ALL editors on WP were considered equal and that equal respect should be shown to all editors and their edits. Am I wrong?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND looking at the history of the page, But DrChrissy does not appear to be the only one involved in the battle. It seems strange to pick one editor out of the three that were reverting repeatedly over the last 48 hours for a block or ban. It appears that DrChrissy made 3 reverts but so were other editors reverting. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Lot's of 'experts' weighing in...reminds me of the definition of an expert, which is someone who knows more and more about less and less until finally knowing absolutely everything about nothing! Why does this remind me of Jytdog and Alexbrn?--Pekay2 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the claim that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR is just silly. And bringing this is kind ... vindictive. drchrissy was not satisfied with the ANI where I was warned and sought to overturn the close at AN, which was snow-closed - see here) drchrissy has been kind of following me around (he doesn't usually edit medical articles for example) looking for fights to pick. This is one is ridiculous. Trout and close, please. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please would you focus on the content of this ANI. You made a reversion which re-introduced material into an article which had been identified as OR. This is contrary to WP policy. Why did you do this? (not a rhetorical question). __DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

really drchrissy. your analysis that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR, and even bringing an ANI over it, is just silly and sad. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the following NPOV approach by DrChrissy: I think a much better way of stating it would be "There is evidence that the Scrambler system benefited patients (insert source), although another study found no beneficial effects (insert source). It is not our position as editors to judge whether the scientific evidence is "good" or "strong" or whatever. But then, I'm one of those editors who believes NPOV and UNDUE are of the utmost importance in an article. Atsme☯ 23:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

and in responding, when you are canvassed. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's rather silly to think a (talk page stalker) was canvassed. Isn't that how you and a few others always seem to end up wherever I'm involved? No canvassing involved. I've been watching ANI trying to understand the various disputes which raised my curiosity as to why Jytdog and a few others appear to always be involved. Coincidence perhaps. Who knows? Atsme☯ 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing by the editors complained of other than an entirely appropriate application of MEDRS to a very problematic article entirely unsupported by reliable sources . The allegation of edit warring by the complaining editor would appear to be an instance for application of WP:PETARD Banks Irk (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed, while Alexbrn and Jytdog might be getting frustrated with DrChrissy, it is the latter we see being disruptive on the article talk page and edit-warring in the article itself (he is at 3RR by my count). I point specifically to the suggestions from DrChrissy in this thread. "Show my the evidence that what I am doing is wrong" is a tactic as old as time. He of all people should know that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence; the prohibition against all forms of original research is codified at WP:OR which is comprehensive, but not exhaustive. Any experienced editor understands that what DrChrissy is suggesting is original research and even DrChrissy himself accepts as much later on (but argues that it "won't break WP" so he should be allowed to do it). He has tried several times to dismiss assessment of his own behavior here. There is an ongoing content dispute (most of his original compliant) and an ongoing AFD and so I don't think anything will be helped by the application of an Aboriginal artifact but DrChrissy needs to take a step back and breath. St★lwart 05:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've been involved in this discussion on Talk:Scrambler therapy for a couple of days, and I do have a problem with editor synthesis of conclusions based on their review of specialized technical material (i.e. various medical studies). A small part of my input in that discussion:

How is it that "experienced health topic editors" are allowed to synthesize summaries with statements like "no good evidence," or selectively highlight certain results because they are from types of studies that are considered higher quality, without explicit explanation? We remain anonymous editors, and verifiability has to take that into account, we have no special expertise when it comes to summarizing.

And again, after more no direct addressing of the question:

Do we recognize "experts" at Misplaced Pages who can essentially override core policy and guidelines? It seems what is being suggested is that, as a general encyclopedia reader (and editor), in cases where special technical knowledge is required that I don't possess, I should trust self-confirmed experts in that area to synthesize conclusions for me (at least, in cases where no secondary review source is there to do that)? Is that not what "no good evidence" is, a Misplaced Pages editor's "expert" summary of specialized medical data?

FYI: I'm an originally "uninvolved editor" who randomly came to that page via AfD notice, and had never seen the handle DrCrissy or "know" that person. Personally, I wouldn't have brought this here (Ive hardly if ever been "here" before), as the discussion is ongoing in Talk, however, as of yet, I still haven't gotten a clear answer... I do get an uncomfortable walled garden feeling when multiple editors suggest that I bone up on specialized guidelines that are supplementary to the core policies and guidelines in order to edit certain content... --Tsavage (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that a complete understanding of DrChrissy's motivations in bringing this wholly trivial issue to AN/I cannot be had without reading this recent AN/I report, in which Jytdog was warned for incivility, but DrChrissy tried like the dickens to get him sanctioned. This looks a lot like another attempt on DrChrissy's part to "punish" Jytdog. I suggest that the superficial complaint is strictly a content dispute, and should be thrown back to the talk page, but the underlying problem might be addressed by warning DrChrissy that he must co-operate with other editors instead of displaying what is essentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. BMK (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indication of OR The OR statement uses two secondary sources. In summary, 4 studies have been examined by the two sources. Three of these (Smith et al. 2010, Sabato et al., 2005, Marineo et al., 2012) recorded a beneficial effect of the Scrambler system. One of these (Campbell et al., 2013) failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect. This 4th study is the weakest of all 4 as the treatment is applied to only 7 individuals (Being a "placebo-controlled, randomized" study is pointless with such a small n!) How can "there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain" possibly be a reasonable and balanced summary of these 4 studies.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Content disputes don't really belong here, but it's not our call to say how weak or strong primary studies are (that's becoming original research itself). We just summarize what the secondary sources (i.e., reviews) say, which is exactly what NPOV calls for. If something is "wrong" in a particular review, we wait for other reviews to either call that out or establish what the actual scientific consensus is. I really suggest bringing this to relevant noticeboards or Wikiprojects as ANI is not the place for this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-collegiate attitude It has been suggested that I should discuss concerns more with Alexbrn and Jtydog. The problem is that when I have requested an explanation or evidence of a supporting policy or guideline of their deletions or edits, they simply stop replying. These are the diffs to 3 examples of this non-collegiate attitude and behaviour, here, here and here. The interaction problem is theirs, not mine.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think your last sentence is misleading, in view of the fact that your first diff shows that you made an unsubstantiated accusation of bullying against one of the editors you are complaining about (particularly here), and in view of what I and another uninvolved editor pointed out here as another example. The general feedback you are being given here is that you are engaging in battleground behaviour, and it should not be so difficult to see why. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Watching these interactions develop on the noticeboards, I agree there does appear to be a battleground behavior going on, but I'm seeing more from DrChrissy than anything. There might be a WP:HOUNDING concern as others like BMK have alluded to. Looking at these conversations, it appears DrChrissy really got wound up at the last ANI, and the posts after at least have the appearance of following Jytdog and others to other articles where DrChrissy doesn't appear to have a history editing. My few interactions with DrChrissy seemed to show the are typically a calm and rational editor, so this doesn't seem like typical behavior for them. I would hope a warning would be enough to disengage from this behavior and utilize content noticeboards, etc. rather than going after individual editors. If this kind of behavior continues, and interaction ban might need to be considered in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I raised this ANI against 2 editors. Alexbrn inserted the original OR and re-inserted it, despite my warning that it was OR. I was already preparing ANI against Alexbrn because they refuse to discuss issues (see here. Jtydog joined in later in re-inserting the OR so it seemed the logical thing to do to include them too. This type of alliance behaviour is a pattern of behaviour established between the pair and it forces any editor with reasonable objections to appear to be edit-warring or even into 3RR.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the disagreement you are having with two editors is a content dispute. Can you actually point to where a consensus has developed to support your assertion that what is being inserted is original research? What attempts have you made to resolve the content dispute, and have you actually attempted dispute resolution? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing ANI It is amazing what a calm, articulate approach which does not seem hell-bent on destroying anyone who dares to use this ANI can achieve. Thank-you Ncmvocalist. I am new to this whole idea about disputes - I absolutely hate it. Your message sent me looking further into dispute resolution and I found there is a Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. Clearly, that is where I should take my concerns. I will withdraw this ANI and thank ALL editors for their contributions. Ncmvocalist, you have done your good deed for the day at Misplaced Pages.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a good move to withdraw your accusations of bad behavior based on your perception of OR edits. But, I don't think others in this thread are done yet discussing other topics, so this thread needs to remain open. Zad68 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually DrChrissy, while it's good to know that you had a read through that link now, it is worth bearing in mind that Zad68 actually already asked you that question about dispute resolution about 21 hours ago in this thread, but you did not appear to be responsive to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "This type of alliance behaviour" comment seems pretty telling of the problem I'm describing. Both are medical editors that frequent related noticeboards and Wikiprojects. I even saw some of those discussions before you started editing the article as well, so to insinuate that multiple editors with common interests showing up is problematic or an indication of something improper seems to be an issue itself. When editors edit in similar topics, well they often will show up at the same articles. To an outside observer, you do appear to be approaching this in a bristly manner coming in with guns a blazing for some reason, so I really do suggest disengaging a bit and attempting to approach this more civilly.

Alexbrn and Jytdog do appear to be taking the standard approach we use at Misplaced Pages to summarizing scientific content. If you are unsure about that approach, this is not the board to discuss that. That discussion would belong a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN (we're talking about assessing WP:WEIGHT more than OR) or a Wikiproject like WT:MED as you've been directed to already. In the diff you gave, it doesn't appear you are being ignored, but just not getting an answer you either want or expect. That being said, I'd be terse with you too if I was being subjected to personal attacks . If you want to have actual discussions on article talk pages, remember to follow WP:TPG, comment on content and not contributor, and avoid sniping like that. You can't expect people to want to work with you well otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Redaction requested due to privacy concerns

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

My apologies if this is not the appropriate place to submit such a request. I am seeking the immediate assistance of an administrator to redact this edit and any similar edits from the The Golden Kite, the Silver Wind article history due to privacy concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have hidden those edits using revdel and will request oversight. I don't mean to be overly critical, but reporting sensitive issues of privacy at a widely trafficked noticeboard like this one is not appropriate because it just brings the edits to wider attention, which is the opposite of what you intend. In the future, you can email WP:Oversight or contact an administrator privately. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your assistance. My intent was to be as discrete as possible but felt the matter was urgent. In the future I will email as suggested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress editing my comments on a talk page

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

Hi. User:Middayexpress has twice removed part of a comment that I left when starting an RfC at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. I reverted the first removal, only for them to remove the comment a second time. I presume that Middayexpress is removing the quote because they now agree to it being included in the article, but the RfC is open and we haven't yet heard other editors' views on it. It also seems to be in breach of WP:TPO. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because the material is not in dispute; it is already on the page . I already pointed this out to you too on the talk page ("That is no longer relevant since I've noted the business material" ). The discussion policy pertains to material in dispute only anything else is irrelevant. Middayexpress (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You accepted the addition of the material to the article after I had started the RfC. That doesn't give you the right to go back and edit the wording of my request. I opened the RfC after you had disputed its addition. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but that's just it; I didn't alter your personal wording. I removed the disputed passages (which I believe you didn't originally write?) because it was no longer relevant. If I erred there, it was in not using the strike-through code; I believe that is what that markup is there for. Would you be happy if that strike-through code were used instead? Or would you prefer that we instead pretend that the content is still in dispute? Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The quotes were part of my comment and were followed by my signature. I would prefer to leave them there so that anyone who comments as part of the RfC can comment on the whole issue. It's not just up to you and me to decide what goes in the article. Other editors might not agree with the addition of that material. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It does seem poor etiquette to remove parts of what someone has written in a talk page comment, even if you do think part of their comment has become redundant. It's for the user who made the comment to strike if they see fit (and that's also better than removal, as it allows future readers to understand the flow of the conversation). To then delete it a second time, after the user in question has expressed a desire to see their comment remain intact, is particularly baffling. I suggest that you should not edit other people's talk page comments in future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And especially since I'd already objected to Middayexpress editing my comments on another talk page just yesterday! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have just restored the removed part of the comment, and I suggest it should be left there since Cordless Larry has expressed a desire for it not to be removed! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry: I already told you yesterday that I would add those links if you had no objection , and you indicated that you had no objection ("I don't particularly object to any of those, although I don't know much about the cases. Feel free to suggest those moves if you wish" ). You only objected after the fact. At any rate, with regard to the present page, I ask you again, would you be happy if that strike-through code were used instead? Or would you prefer that we instead pretend that the content is still in dispute? Because the strike-through code appears to be actual correct policy here. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)