Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 23 December 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈ 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Misplaced Pages mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.

The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc  19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

• September 2015: misleading edit summary
• August 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: STSC makes major changes to the Hong Kong article with the edit summary "ce". The edits censor the reason behind the 2014 Hong Kong protests (i.e. universal suffrage), delete information on police abuses, delete reference to the largely peaceful nature of the protest. I reverted these edits once and STSC places a warning template on my talk page to intimidate me. I give up.
• May 2015: Misleading edit summary - removes reference to Hong Kong as having a "high degree of autonomy", again deleting reference to Hong Kong's autonomy, egregiously misleading edit summary
• March 2015: rm reference to police abuses despite being referenced to Time magazine
• February 2015: misleading edit summary
• January 2015: misleading edit summary
• November 2014: Censorship of well-sourced and widely reported material about the credibility of a pro-government group's survey, reverts again with edit summary referring to WP:CRYSTALBALL (does not apply), places personal attack warning template on my talk page while I have never made any personal attacks, again, I beefed up the sources, more censorship, I open a lengthy talk page discussion, he blanks 3000 bytes of referenced material, I gave up.
• December 2014: misleading edit summary, incomplete edit summary - placing badge of People's Liberation Army in place of the Cenotaph, low-key agenda editing, misleading edit summary, rm photo of protesters, rm reference to large numbers of protesters citing the CBC, a reliable source; totally rm reference to protests in Central and Wan Chai that shut down highways and roads and were publicised in numerous reliable sources
• November 2014: censor photo of protests, ditto, more photo censorship, ridiculous photo censorship with no distinction between impartial coverage of the protests, and actual NPOV behavior, more attempted censorship of this particular banner
• October 2014: spamming articles with fringe theories about how the U.S. government supposedly instigated the 2014 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests (1, 2, 3), censorship - Beijing's nomination committee IS what the protests were about, misleading edit summary, censorship of information cited to reliable source, misleading edit summary/censorship, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, unexplained deletion of protest sites, he repeatedly changed "water cannons" to "water sprays", misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary/unexplained deletions
• September 2014: delete reference to Hong Kong as a former British colony
• September 2014: changing the Hong Kong infobox to show Putonghua (Mandarin) as the "national language" of Hong Kong, with Cantonese as a "regional language". For those unfamiliar with China/Hong Kong, Putonghua is the language promoted by the national government in Beijing. Cantonese is the language spoken by 95% of Hong Kong people
• September 2014: "fixing style/layout errors" - but in fact making major changes to the infobox, i.e. changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation"
• June 2014: misleading edit summary

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Misplaced Pages conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Misplaced Pages back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Misplaced Pages. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits(). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈ 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No action, seriously? sst✈ 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to see a statement from STSC. Also, pinging is not considered appropriate notification as pings can sometimes fail.

I was caught out once. A ping is only successful if you type in the username correctly and sign the post. If you go back and edit it to complete the ping, it won't work. However, I do see that you posted an ANI notification on their TP in any case. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know this user SSTflyer, I have never had any interaction with him. If there's any issue with me, he should have discussed with me in my Talk page. This is just a case of childish hate campaign to discredit another user on personal or political reasons, and it's a pack of lies, e.g. "STSC has a history of blocks and topic bans", etc. I have had opponents in content disputes when I tried to maintain a balanced view in articles, and it's not surprising some of them would want to join in this. There's nothing I need to defend the way I edit in my near 10 years on Wiki; that's why I just could not be bothered to reply to these ridiculous false accusations. STSC (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is typical. When faced with grievances over content, STSC throws around accusations of a "hate campaign" for "personal reasons" and otherwise avoids at all costs addressing valid concerns over his/her POV editing. I and others have attempted to reason with you on talk pages countless times and it goes nowhere – your enforce your POV and censorship in an uncompromising, bullying manner. Deleting photographs and well-sourced material from pages does not constitute "maintaining a balanced point of view" – it is politically-driven censorship. Citobun (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie, we had the 3rd opinion on the image deletion issue and the neutral user agreed to the deletion. On other issues you alone just could not accept other users who have different views from yours and you continue to hold grudges. STSC (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of that particular instance doesn't change the fact that you frequently censor images for political reasons. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Accusing others of not accepting different political views is really pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one blanking and censoring sourced material for political reasons. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all censoring and there're good reasons for these edits. Why just brought them on here now if you disputed these edits? Up to now you still could not accept the 3rd opinion on the images in the Hong Kong articles, and it's rather sad you still harbour a long-term grudge against me based on the content disputes in 2014. STSC (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a question of a "long-term grudge", but rather your own long-term WP:ADVOCACY. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You have jumped on every opportunity to use false accusations to discredit other editors. I've seen this all before. STSC (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The nice thing about Misplaced Pages is that our respective contributions are there for all to see and scrutinize. So call me a liar if you like but your editing history speaks for itself. Citobun (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The bad thing is you abusing the system to harass other user. Other content disputants like user Ohconfucius have moved on since the 2014 Hong Kong protests but you're still Wikihounding your opponent out of revenge. STSC (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not "Wikihounding"...stop throwing around false accusations. We have interacted perhaps one time since the protests a year ago. I contribute now because I was asked to. Citobun (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who has been throwing false accusations around on here. STSC (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{Non admin view} The problem, in my eyes, is STSC's edits do look to be more aligned towards the mainland Chinese POV, but on the flip side of it the editors that are raising the complaint have an obvious pro-HK POV. No one comes here with entirely clean hands in this dispute as it's a clash of ideologies. My heritage hails from both sides of the border that once separated China from HK but I was born and raised overseas. I nonetheless have held a strong interest in the politics of the region and in my view this dispute is a manifestation of those differences. For example, prior to STSC's pruning, the 2014 protests in HK article was heavily laden with images. Far more than I would have expected to see for what was essentially a singular event. Some of the other image removals, with the rationale that STSC used do seem reasonable, but as STSC has a pro-mainland POV their image removal makes it look politically motivated. I don't really see the need for action, at this time, against either party except a requirement that WP:DRN be used more frequently. Falun Gong is a very touchy article and is subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Anything that is viewed as violating the sanctions should be referred to WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I must thank user Blackmane for your fair comment on this. STSC (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an HK/mainland issue. My analysis of STSC's editing is skewed toward Hong Kong because that subject is a focus of my own editing and hence the context in which I have encountered him. The problem is that STSC is exclusively a pro-CCP activist editor. Meanwhile I have created articles such as 2015 Hong Kong heavy metal in drinking water incidents which reflects very badly on Hong Kong. Certainly everyone has a POV but I don't think mine is necessarily "pro HK", and more importantly I am not here for Misplaced Pages:Advocacy or to censor others.

Nobody, STSC included, has really addressed the problematic issues above – misleading edit summaries, censorship of reliably referenced content, refusal to discuss, refusal to cooperate, bullying use of talk page warning templates, almost exclusively agenda editing – that together amount to disruptive editing. If anyone is inclined to characterise this dispute as merely a simple clash of ideologies I would suggest you compare our edit histories side by side and note the differences in editing behavior. Additionally please note that STSC is active in all other controversial China-related subjects, not just Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your POV is not necessarily "pro-HK" but certainly pro-British colonialism. Editors are free to choose any topic to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in Hong Kong history. I am not pro-British colonialism. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I should have said... You're very much 'pro-British colonialism in Hong Kong', of course. STSC (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No administrative issue here; there's a difference of opinion on emphasis which is quite subtle to outsiders. For example, a link to the article 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform without mentioning it as being "about universal suffrage" does not "censor" anything, since the linked article talks about suffrage in detail. Such a change to a summary on a different article falls within the realm of a copyedit and is not misleading.

What I do think needs to change, though, is when STSC is complaining about a personal attack, he should reference where he is being personally attacked, by using a diff like this (which took 2 seconds to find, so there's probably tons more), where Citobun calls him a "agenda editor". Anyway, these diffs are stale. Stop stoking the fire of old bad feelings. Shrigley (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've listed are stale. But the agenda editing has continued, hence why the issue was brought here. Anyway, I am tired of bickering about this and don't really want to contribute further – but this has been a very prolonged issue and if it is not properly addressed I think it will keep reemerging. Citobun (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Citobun has the cheek to complain about "agenda editing" while he would invite Falun Gong editors to join him. That shows his hypocrisy, and basically he and SSTflyer are just trying to silence other editors who don't share their POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Falun Gong nor do I know who you would consider a "Falun Gong editor". Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on that. STSC (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that everyone here forgets the use of misleading edit summaries by STSC. No matter the POV, the edit summary "ce" should not be used when any meaning of the text has been changed. sst✈ 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Action should be taken against user SSTflyer for abusing the ANI process to silence other editors who do not share his POV. His trick is to start an ANI with a pack of lies and then ping a selection of past content disputants to do his dirty work. The Misplaced Pages community must not accept this kind of disgraceful hate campaign with political motive. STSC (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the one accusing other editors of being "pro-colonialism"142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's my response to Citobun accusing me of pro-CCP; I'm absolutely not. STSC (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~ 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!

I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked and answered there. Because of two major inaccuracy the proposal had to be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

Tendentious editing at Firearms policy in the United Kingdom

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

• Firearms policy in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Twobells added some text to the lede of this article. The text was reverted on the grounds of WP:SYN. Twobells rejects that and asserts that his edits are (a) sourced and (b) uncontroversial. His idea of an impartial RfC statement could use some work. I think this user needs a warning and potentially may at some point need to be separated from this article. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you could do better explaining why this is more than a content dispute. HighInBC 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Twobells also objected to my closing of their improper RfC on my talk page. Subsequently, they basically just posted the exact same RfC again, so I've made an attempt to reword it neutrally since Twobells seems insistent on using the RfC process to canvass uninvolved editors to agree with their POV. Note also that Twobells has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, refusing to listen to consensus, and refusing to disengage. However, I do think this instance is a simple content dispute. For now, anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and possibly even incipient WP:NCR. Please review the user's comments on the talk page. In my view they are tendentious, the user is ignoring dissenting voices and refusing to accept anybody's view that conflicts with his desired edits. So yes, it's a content dispute but one that I think requires a warning to the user such that if he carries on, he can be sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, everyone and thank you for your time. What these editors call 'Tendentious' is nothing more than the attempted addition of non-contentious referenced material. I would like for a moment to check the definition of 'Tendentious', if that's okay? expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. The material concerned is the considered opinion following extensive research of a number of well-known and respected authors and journalists, their source material speaks for itself, they have no agenda political or otherwise and that is the crux of the matter. More, that no attempt at balance and neutrality has been adhered to in the removal of said source material. With good faith in mind, I premise that editor Nick Cooper is attempting to employ these tactics to avoid the addition of non-contenticious straight forward transparent source material, regards. Twobells (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is contentious is blindingly obvious from the fact that there is a long argument on the Talk page where you are failing to persuade others of the merits of inclusion. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

'others'? There is only one editor apart from myself currently editing the article, you seemingly appeared from nowhere when I challenged the constant reversions of non-contentious referenced material. Moving on, the reason for the very long talk section is not that the referenced material is contencious, rather that another editor consistantly refuses to accept that he cannot remove non-contentious material, if you read the talk history you will see that the conversation is centered around trying to politely and calmly discuss why Nick Cooper must abide by best Wiki policy not employ WP:OR and rather than try and dominate the article as if he owns it accept that other editors have a right to add said material. Twobells (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made my Twobells, it seems they might have a slight battleground mentality, I suggest someone warn him. Weegeerunner 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you have just reverted my own edit stating that 'I should not delete other peoples messages', which suggests bias. Also, wanting to add non-contenticious referenced material in a polite and calm manner while being accused of lying and scoffed at for not having the latest computer is not a 'battlefield mentaility' however, it may suggest, perhaps, I am not getting a fair hearing here. Twobells (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

After I cleaned up the language in the RfC and left my own comment on the material to be added, Twobells simply deleted the whole thing (). So, I've made my own RfC. For the record, I was originally summoned to the discussion by the bot that advertises RfCs, I don't give a crap about guns in the United Kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What you actually did was rew-write another editors rfc according to your terms of reference, I will revert that and when I am ready I will re-write the rfc according to mine which I believe will neutrally reflect the situation, for some reason you've jumped into the discussion and then appropriated the rfc for reasons known only to yourself. Twobells (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: you invited outside comment by using the RfC process. RfC means "request for comment". You know what that means, right? It means that your thread gets advertised on a special page, and a special bot goes around putting notices on users' talk pages that there's a thread open requesting comments on an issue. I am one of those users. After the bot notified me, I closed your improper RfC so that other users wouldn't be bothered by it, and then I unwatched the page because I really don't care about this. I only came back because you brought your tendentious "me against everybody" attitude to my talk page. I don't really care about that either, I just explained my rationale and suggested you try with a properly formatted RfC, which you did. So then I offered comment, but you didn't like how it was going and deleted the whole thing. But by that point, I was interested, so I started yet another RfC, which since it's properly formatted is drawing comment from other disinterested users signed up for the feedback request service, and that is not working out in your favour, is it? So, watch what you wish for, I guess. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, I did, what I didn't expect was an editor to come along and then edit the rfc according to his terms of reference which were frankly both incorrect and biased in favour of the status quo, regards.Twobells (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is Twobells' standard pattern: cobble together a series of (often dubious) sources to support some strongly held content he wishes to add to an article, then when someone objects engage in a series of reverts accusing the editor of suppressing his valid edits using a policy such as WP:OR (of which he entirely lacks understanding), then move to the talk page and engage in a war of words, often across multiple threads and always on the offensive. The next move, when consensus is clearly against him, will be to either threaten a report to an admin (this move is falling from favor) or head to somewhere like WP:DRN. Twobells operates on the assumption that if he has content with a source (regardless of the veracity or reliability of the source), his edit is a) not tendentious and; b) must be allowed to stand. A while back, he got on a highly nationalistic streak and attempted to claim several American TV shows were British-American based on some very thin, paywalled textbook sources (all British) and some minor participation by UK entities in the production of the show. Another editor and I went around and around and AROUND with him, attempting to reasonably and rationally discuss why his sources were problematic and the involvement he cited was not in line with MOS:TV, but he would not budge. With consensus well against him, he tried reports to a couple noticeboards as a means of intimidation before trying WP:DRN. The other editor most strongly involved in the discussion and I refused to play his game when it went to that length, and he finally gave up. But it was a long old battle before he did.

There are several peripheral issues that make working with Twobells more problematic. First, he has a tendency to edit and re-edit his posts after one or more editors has responded. Second, he tends to start multiple threads (there are three on the article talk page above as of this morning) related to the issue, resulting in multiple running discussions that are eventually all the same thing. Third, he will suddenly disappear for days on end, then come back, guns blazing. I gather the last is work related, but he never does the editors involved in the discussion the courtesy of letting them known he'll be gone, leaving them to conclude he's left the discussion. None is major by itself, but taken together, they add to the difficulty of carrying on reasonable discussion with Twobells. Someone above said he has a "slight" battleground mentality. That's like saying a woman two weeks from delivery is slightly pregnant. A perusal of his edit history will show a number of these protracted "me against them" discussions on a range of topics. It's exhausting, counterproductive and disruptive. --Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The above certainly tallies with my encounters with Twobells, mostly on UK firearms-related page. It seems that Twobells maintains a belief that if something they think supports their own pre-existing view of a subject has been published, then it must stand, regardless of whether other editors dispute it as valid corroboration, or if a key claim or claims in a source can be shown to be wrong or misleading. They also have a tendency to argue the quality of the sources - and/or their authors - as if that magically over-rules the most basic of fact-checking. Twobells frequently accuses anyone who presents evidence that something in one of their sources is in error or otherwise false of relying on OR, and thus declaring such objections inadmissible. Whether this is a case of them knowingly gaming the system, or - as Mrmargi says - a lack of understanding of what actually constitutes OR, is impossible to say. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It tallies with my experience also and I still haven't got my head round why they nominated British Raj for deletion. I don't think I've had a single useful discussion with them due to the battleground issue and, let's say, unique interpretation of policies. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with those above; Twobells often cherrypicks select phrases totally out of context or completely misinterprets sources to prop up his synth/opinions. This is exactly what he is doing again at the Firearms policy page. Keri (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: With respect to good faith something has to be said. No-one is interested in the whinings of partisan editors who attempt, for reasons only known to themselves, to appropriate Misplaced Pages articles and then game the system to prevent the addition of non-contentious, reliably-sourced, referenced material. The above editors fail to see clearly here, that they are assigning their motivation to the editing of others. I have no 'strongly-held' beliefs regarding these particular edits, I read the articles, found them clearly out of date and in some cases incorrect and did my best to improve them. However, in doing so, I confronted political bias in the form of an agenda to keep said non-contentious, reliably-sourced, referenced material off the article concerned. I have done my level best to be both polite and patient with levels of intransigence that would demean a 5 year-old and I am just sorry this mockery took up the time of hard-working editors with better things to do, regards Twobells (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"I have no 'strongly-held' beliefs regarding these particular edits" You are absolutely not obligated to respond to this (although if you choose to I would appreciate honesty; I also completely accept that people edit topics they are personally interested in): I am intrigued to know if you are yourself a FAC holder, firearm owner and enthusiastic sport shooter. Keri (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No,no and no, further, I am sorry that your projected bias has no validity, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting answer. And for the record, I've been shooting air weapons since the '70s, and firearms (handguns, rifles and assault rifles) since '82. What was that about "projected bias"? Keri (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have asked Twobells to voluntarily withdraw from this. I suggest that we close this if there are no objections. If they continue I suppose a topic ban or a block would be in order. --John (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have agreed because an editor showed good faith, was polite and promotes best policy. Twobells (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes

This is the last of a long record of unsourced additions of content from Tobibln (talk · contribs). The user continues ignoring the warnings left at their talk regarding the addition of unreferenced material. You may find more diffs at the user's talk. I believe other actions are now in order.--Jetstreamer  14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Which destination are you disputing? A quick check of Moscow Domodedovo Airport's flight schedule webpage verifies all the aiports Tobibln added. This is a nine year, 33k / 98.8% mainspace edit, drama free account . Unreferenced material is allowed to be added -- a reference is only required if it's likely to be challenged. Why would someone argue about easily verified airplane destinations? NE Ent 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard about WP:BURDEN? References for start/end dates are required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer  17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer  20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed this behavior, and I've undone lots of his edits, like this. Looking at his contributions, I've found this old edit, where Tobibln talked to another user. So I don't understand why he's not responding on his talk page, as the user has certainly seen notifications. Wjkxy (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). The advice at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT includes "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." In both examples given in this thread, finding a reference to support Tobibln's addition was easy. The big picture question should be, what is more important, that Tobibln is improving mainspace by adding non-contentious, easily verifiable content without referencing it, or that they are not "following the rules"? Per Misplaced Pages:NOTBUREAUCRACY the obvious answer should be the former. NE Ent 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer  13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Here you have a clean example (i.e., not masked by current destinations that currently do not require a citation) of a totally unsourced addition made by this editor.--Jetstreamer  13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tobibln: you have been here almost 10 years but have never really talked to anyone in the community. We are a collaborative project, please discuss this with us. HighInBC 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this user has not edited since this post here. I would say that this is probably going to get archived without a response. I think if it carries on and they continue to fail to communicate that it should be brought back here and this thread linked to. HighInBC 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jetstreamer  20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on the history of Haiti

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

The user Savvyjack23 has been attempting to censure any mention of the Haitian genocide from the article on Haiti. I request an Administrator to help mediate the situation, and take an unbiased view at the current article.

The article in question is Haiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitian STEVE (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation and agree Savvyjack23 was correct to revert your edits. I suggest you get consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page instead of keep attempting to force it into the introduction. Number 57 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute, dispute resolution such as WP:3O may be helpful, assuming there's been sufficient discussion on the talk page. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is far from the truth. (As per mentioned above,) and while many of Haitian STEVE's edits in the past have also been controversial. If you look at his talk page, he has removed all the warnings he has incurred up to this point. To whom it may concern, thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing a warning is proof that the user saw the warning, and it remains in the history for all to see. So, that's a thing. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

3O wouldn't work because Number 57 has already given an opinion. I'd say the OP is heading for a boomerang. Erpert 01:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias in Sporting Clube de Portugal by User:SportingCP1906

(@Yamaguchi先生 and Davefelmer:)

I don't know if this is the right place, and I have complained in Yamaguchi先生's talk page, but please review edits in Sporting Clube de Portugal since 24 November 2015, before SportingCP1906 (talk · contribs) joined Misplaced Pages. As a Sporting CP supporter, he has been introducing blantant bias in the article, using primary sources, unreliable sources, non-notable content, and unsourced content about living people. Thank you very much. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

SportingCP1906 has also been uploading copyrighted images to Commons without permission to be used in Sporting Clube de Portugal. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am free at the moment and I will have a look at the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, thanks for your assistance.

The sentence "3.5 million fans spread across the globe" in the lead is unsourced. It's a claim made by Sporting CP. The rivalries section has heavy bias, for example, it does not mention the fact that Sporting CP fans put a stand of Estádio da Luz on fire when Benfica beat Sporting in 2011. This incident is way way more notable than "In 2015, in a futsal derby, members of No Name Boys referenced the incident by showing a banner with the inscription "Very Light 96", an act which infuriated Sporting", which actually was a consequence of Sporting fans making fun of the death of one of No Name Boys founders, Gullit, before the futsal match. "Some argued that the incident of 1996 wasn't an accident, but a deliberate act to cause injury on Sporting fans", the source is not working and Record is a newspaper close to Sporting, part of group Cofina (yes, like a conspiracy. "Álvaro Sobrinho is also the largest private investor in Sporting Clube de Portugal" and "holds large investments in telecommunications with YooMee Africa and the media industry with Newshold Group", related to Cofina...), and according to Portuguese media the incident has always been described as an accident. To imply that it wasn't is speculation, a serious accusation and a BLP violation on the person who did it (he already served his time in prison), whom is still alive.

"and fans of the club were so disgusted by their team's performance that they began setting fire to their scarfs and flags", the source is from a Sporting supporters website, and the claim is doubtful since is usually made by Sporting supporters to infuriate Benfica supporters. For example, Sporting fans still commemorate the result of that match, despite Benfica won the league and cup that season.

"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

By user:SportingCP1906.

I don't understand the issue here, but it seems everything I write is either biased or incorrect. I do not intend to offend anyone or start a edit war, but this is very unpleasant, as I'm just completing a page that was extremely incomplete before i joined wikipedia.

First things first: I do not own any of the pictures, however, I use them as a free licence for educational purposes, and they all relate to important moments of Sporting. What I'm going to do is put the places where I have taken the pictures from. As such, people can know I'm only citing other sources for educational purposes.

Second: the person who says Record belongs to Cofina and has close ties to Sporting, but does not show facts to prove the point. So if I'm biased and I use unsourced evidence, the same should apply to the user in question.

Third: :"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. . This is from a Benfica blog, as such, is biased, but it says exactly the same as I was saying. The person in question must be portuguese, because seems to know a lot about portuguese football, as such, must have faculties to read the article. And for a fact, Sporting had a great team: Luis Figo (future Ballon d'Or Winner), Paulo Sousa (two-time UEFA Champions League winner) and Balakov, recently considered the greatest Stuttgart player of all time. Also, I say Benfica won the championship, I do not hide that.

Fourth: I talk about dark periods of the club, such as the nearly demise in 2012-13 and the 12-1 aggregate loss for Bayern Munich in 2009. Also, there are videos on the Internet proving Benfica fans set fire to the scarfs and flags. And before that I say "Benfica were at the head of the table", something not mentioned.

Fifth: Regarding the very light incident, I will had more information regarding behavior of both clubs, I do not argue with that. However, I must show this TSF is one of the most renowned radios in Portugal, as such, is reliable.

The person clearly supports Benfica, and there is a conflict of interest for both sides then. However, I'm going to keep edit and fulfill a page that deserves to be more complete. Any problem with that and I'm willing for a healthy discussion, not one that borders the ridicule.

References

1. "Jogos Imortais: Sporting 3 Sport Lisboa e Benfica 6". aminhachama.blogspot.pt. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
2. tsf.pt. TSF http://www.tsf.pt/desporto/interior/benfica-acabouse-o-blackout-comecou-o-folclore-4391774.html. Retrieved 20 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

You don't understand copyright. What you do is license laundering, and you don't understand fair use.

Portuguese people who follow Portuguese football know that. I don't have to prove it since I'm not editing Cofina or Record.

Blogs aren't reliable sources.

"Videos on the internet" aren't reliable sources.

The "incident" in the futsal derby isn't notable when compared to the fire inside Estádio da Luz.

If you really want to improve the article about your club, you should read Misplaced Pages:List of guidelines. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As a Portuguese myself, the word Portugal caught my eye, and I am willing to help. However, I tried to go through the user in question's (user) contributions, and they're too long to analyze. Por favor, can you please provide diffs about their behavior on the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

repeated removal of COI and Notibilty tags on page Thomas Strudwick

Hello When I reviewed the article Thomas Strudwick on the new pages feed, I tagged the article with multiple issues including for COI and Notabilty, but one of the editors (with a possible COI) is ignoring my repeated requests to stop deleting these tags without the necesary article improvements. The whole of the page history shows up these issues. I also suspect sock-puppetry and have requested an investigation about this on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Racing25. Please can an administrator get involved here to help? Pahazzard (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion on the talk page. Those tags all suggest discussion on the talk page which is pretty hard to do if you don't explain the COI issues. Notability-wise what is your concern is unclear either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thanks for all your help. I'm lacking experience in the COI tagging and hadn't thought to write that up in the article talk page - I'll remember to do that in future. The notability guidance seems a bit whooly, and I'd rather tag it than not for at least getting consensus from other editors. There was sockpuppetry involved that has led to the COI accounts being blocked at present, so all fine for now. Thanks again Pahazzard (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear COI, in that Thomasstrudwick (talk · contribs) (now blocked) edited only Thomas Strudwick. The subject of the article is marginally notable; there's some press coverage in reliable sources , and they did win one championship race. So the article needs improvement, but probably not deletion. Attention from someone into motorcycle racing would be helpful. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yerevan Thermal Power Plant

As a part of student assignement, Armanilogin (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) continues to re-add copyrighted material to the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant. The issue is discussed at the articleõs talk page and at my talk page, but these editors refuse to understand the copyright violations policy and ignores the request to not restore copyrighted material or remove maintenance tgs without discussing first. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear administration, the user Baegal does not discuss anything with us. He just deletes our work putting his own without explaining anything. We have redone our work 5 times and he does not respond in any way. He just puts the article the same way as he did before, and deletes our work constantly. IF we violate something he could at least explain us what to do. Nevertheless, he speaks with us with an offensive tone, and does not cooperate with us. We would be glad to cooperate with him and help wikipedia with its hard job. Also, you can see in his message lots of grammatical mistakes, that one more time proves his attitude. I think he has issues to my race/nationality. Best Regards, A new, but enthusiastic member of Misplaced Pages, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted once again and given each user a clear warning about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It still is going on . Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And possible sockpuppet . Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yeah, seems to be a meatpuppet. I think we're better off giving a bit of ROPE one last time. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

MFD's related to fair use violation claims in Timed Text

Just FYI, I WP:IAR closed an entire batch of MFD's, venue changing them to a larger discussion at WT:NFC. If you are interested in the discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair-use_status_of_Timed_Text. — xaosflux 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887

The user Wj887 appears to have created multiple duplicate pages which need deleting, under the names QHT, Quantum Hi-Tech, Quantum Hi Tech, etc. I was unable to pick them out specifically because they are exactly alike in terms of content. The articles he's created have been CSD tagged multiple times but the user has continued to recreate these articles. CatcherStorm 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave him/her a final warning. Erpert 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Page move and gaming the system

User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.

It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That might have justified moving it back, but the edit to the resulting redirect was clearly an attempt to game the system by making it harder for his action to be reversed, which is definitely against the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations at Mo Ansar

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

Having an issue with this user at Mo Ansar, repeatly reverting to insert their negatively-skewed POV of this political commentator. Has been warned by several editors not to reinsert defamatory material like this but continues unabated, with edit summaries such as "unfortunately for you, it's the truth". Only edits this article, unless it's to insert negative POV about this person in other articles. WP:NOTHERE block appears to be in order. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A quite horrid BLP at best. I cleaned up some of the worst bits, but a lot of it is still "sourced" to YouTube. Collect (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have referenced all of my edits. Although they have been taken out, feel free to check back. I have reverted some and it has then gone back without references. I can only apologise for being new and not getting the rules right. This whole page since Dec 2015 was edited into a promo page, which i don't think this site should be used for. The Youtube channel you talk of collect hosted nothing but footage of the subject, including a recording of one of his personal phone calls. I will leave you to decide who runs the 'Driller Kay' account on Youtube.

Ivanvector unfortunately there is a lot of negative points around the subject of this page. As I'm sure you can see by the evidence that 'either he or someone close to him' edited this page to make himself look good. I have inserted many credible links and citings to my edits of which you and others have removed, however they do not breech conduct rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

LutonPete continues to edit war ( ) to reinsert improperly sourced defamatory material about this living person, despite being told that their sources are unacceptable and their edits violate policy. Asking for an admin to intervene. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo 16:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

List of people with surname Carpenter is an anthroponomy article or must have similar names re-directed to disambiguation pages?

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

A problem has been coming up and it has lead to some edit warring and pointing of Wiki rules. And the interpretation there of.

The article List of people with surname Carpenter is an anthroponomy article and shows a list of people with that surname on Misplaced Pages. A few disambiguation editors cite WP:INTDABLINK and that this "is not a policy applying to a disambiguation pages; it is a policy applying to all links, in any pages, pointing to disambiguation pages."

They imply that this rule over rides disambiguation and list articles. This interpretation allows them to tear apart list articles with similar first names of the same surname and redirect the reader to multiple disambiguation pages.

For example: William Carpenter at List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter#W had all those name removed from the list article and replaced with William Carpenter (disambiguation), several people which redirects to William Carpenter.

I have no problem with William Carpenter per say as a disambiguation article. The problem is their insistence that strips the list article of the same names. In essence destroying the purpose of the List or anthroponomy article.

I have cited ...
Disambiguation pages#Given names or surnames "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponomy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them."

Example: List of people with surname Spencer Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. The same applies to this list and other similar lists.

Disambiguation
What not to include ... https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches ... To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well-known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponomy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.

They insist that anything (for example) that has Bob or Bobby Carpenter must be "a link such as Bobby Carpenter is a link to a disambiguation page. That link should therefore follow the rule of WP:INTDABLINK, which you copy out above: Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page., so the link should be piped through Bobby Carpenter (disambiguation). The links from "List of ..." are clearly not errors; they are "intentional disambiguation links" as described here, and are linked through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects so that it is obvious that they are intentional links and will not be found in a search for incorrect links to the dab page."

The gist appears that a list or anthroponomy article which has similar names (like Bob or Bobby Carpenter) with a direct links to the article on the subject (different Bob or Bobby Carpenters) must be redirected through yet another disambig link before being directed to the actual article needed. And this despite the list having the specific and direct link to the article in question. (Which they repeatedly change to "Bobby Carpenter (or Bob Carpenter), several people". This appears to be regardless of intention of the list in question.

Why all the redirects to different disambig pages when the list or anthroponomy article should and does provide a direct link to the article in question?

Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a form of WP:LISTCRUFT. There seems to be more of this lately; there have been four massive redirect spams in the last month. In general, trying to emulate a search engine by hand is a futile exercise and clutters Misplaced Pages. That's why Yahoo Directory is dead. We may need clearer policy on this. John Nagle (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That isn't for ANI though. It seems like there needs to be some MOS policy here such as whether we should include red links or require sources for them or include fictional character or only if there's separate articles on them or what. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC) - ???????

Jrcrin001, the specific edit you seem to be unhappy with is this one. Ironically, you have complained about this edit to a number of editors who had nothing to do with it, but have never contacted the user who actually made the edit. And, until now, it was impossible to understand what your objection was, because you copied-and-pasted huge walls of text instead of explaining simply what you meant. To make a long story short, you were unhappy because links to articles about individuals were removed from the surname list page, and replaced with links to the disambiguation pages for those names. I've seen it done both ways, but the bottom line is that you left fairly unpleasant messages on the user talk pages of multiple people who had nothing to do with this change, and instead were only trying to format the resulting links correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, here are the two edits in question: . (I am basing this off of the two user talk pages Jrcrin001 notified of this discussion.) In them, links like Bobby Carpenter, a link to a disambiguation page, were changed to links to Bobby Carpenter (disambiguation), the same disambiguation page. Since they were already intentional links to disambiguation pages, the edits did specifically what WP:INTDABLINK says should be done. That is all those edits did, they certainly did not do anything that qualifies as tear apart list articles. The edits did not remove any lines. I'm having trouble spotting what the issue is here that requires ANI, let alone such a gigantic wall of text at ANI. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

REPLY -
Names in list article currently shows 23 William Carpenter with direct links to their specific articles. See: List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter#W
1) An editor comes in a deletes those direct links and replaces them with ... William Carpenter, several people.
2) A bot or human editor comes in and adds a disambig link citing WP:INTDABLINK. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter&oldid=695545937
3) An editor says about 2) that we did nothing wrong but fixed a problem and that they are doing nothing improper. (hint: The problem must be with you.)

The disambig link editor uses the names removed from the list article for the disambig page. And despite efforts this has happened several times. Recently I contacted two of the secondary editors to advise them of a conflict of what I see in Wiki rules. They are the ones that did the second part and not the first part. I have contacted other editors before this off and on over the last many months. This to no conclusion. This time after their comments that I have been "advised" I am wrong and one implying that I can not read or understand their interpretation of one rule over riding everything else. I have had enough. I do not want to edit war and I do not wish to fight any turf battle. I told them both I was bouncing this issue up stairs for admin help.

FYI - I am not on Misplaced Pages daily nor am I an expert. I, like many others quit adding to Misplaced Pages, helping, donating and making corrections because of the too many PC and other power dominant editors doing their own thing. I, like too many part time editors hate the bully tactics and the games played on Misplaced Pages. I came back at the request of several people who encouraged me strongly to come back. Not much has really changed in my opinion. Misplaced Pages is still byzantine with too many conflicting rules. This is the first time I have brought this issue to this page. Usually I go to others and try to work things out. Recently I see among the disambig editors that there will be no consensus. It is their way or the highway. Or no interpretation but theirs.

There is a game and interpretation of a single Wiki rule to strip names with direct links in List or anthroponomy articles. This creates duplicate pages of links. Like a manual index. I have not mentioned here one single editor who is doing this. This was deliberate to focus on the problem and not any specific editor.

I would like to have a consensus and ruling (so to speak) that they (Disambig type editors) quit striping names out of List or anthroponomy articles to create their redirects to articles. Again - When they remove the name they create the problem by replacing it with a single name and an eventual link to a disambig page for the names they stripped out in the first place. To me that is wrong. It defeats the purpose of the list or anthroponomy page.

I read the rules and it seemed clear to me that List pages aka anthroponomy pages are exempt from such diambig redirects. Especially when they link directly to the article in question. The exception being for the occasional needed hat notes at the top of the page.

Am I right or wrong? If I am right say so. If I am wrong, then okay fine. If any Administrator can help me understand why I am wrong that would be very nice and extra.

The disambig editors can keep their disambig pages of duplicate links - I do not care about them -, but they should leave the list articles alone. Nor do I care if their disambig pages are orphans or not. I do not care about their number games or status within the Disambig community.

I will abide by the Administrators review of this specific issue. AND if I am too wordy or do not use those fancy short cuts or use the proper wiki words - too bad. If you hold that against me or decide your opinion based on any of that then that tells more about you than me.

I await the Administrators decision. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators have nothing to do here. Administrators role is to use a few tools to protect Misplaced Pages from overt disruption. This is a regular dispute between people having s good faith disagreement. Use processes outlined at WP:DR to reach a consensus. Admins have no time to play in this, unless someone starts making problems. --Jayron32 00:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no objection to listing all 23 people named "William Carpenter" on the list of people with the surname "Carpenter". So long as none of those is a link to the disambiguation page, there is no conflict with WP:INTDABLINK, or any other policy I know of. I do not replace lists of unambiguous links with single links to disambiguation pages, so I really don't know why I have been brought into this discussion at all, if that is the only complaint. bd2412 T 00:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved?
That WP:INTDABLINK DOES NOT over ride WP:NAMELIST & MOS:DABNAME ?
That specific links within a List article should not be removed for replacement disambig links in List articles? IE ALL William Carpenter (or any other name listings) and their specific links to the individual article to a specific list article not be removed from a list article and replaced with a link to a disambig article on William Carpenter or similar?

That WP:INTDABLINK DOES NOT require stripping within List articles of direct name links to specific articles and forcing those same names into Disambig link pages?

If that is a consensus and meets Administrative approval then I am happy. Because if the issue happens again, I can cite this if it is a consensus. Or as mentioned above doe this need to go to yet another noticeboard or elsewhere?

Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You still do not get the point. WP:INTDABLINK does not say anything about whether a list of people with a common surname should (a) list every article about a person who has that surname, even if several of them have the same first name, or (b) just link to a disambiguation page that lists people who have the same first and last names. What WP:INTDABLINK does says is that if the latter approach is chosen, then the link should be of the form Firstname Lastname (disambiguation), and not just Firstname Lastname. The reason this discussion is not getting anywhere is because you do not understand the difference between these two concepts, so you are unable to comprehend the responses you are receiving. But the issue you are complaining about is the replacement of links to individual articles with links to disambiguation pages, not the formatting of those links. If you keep referring to irrelevant policies and issues, you are just going to confuse everyone. You have not achieved a consensus on anything because you haven't even been able to state clearly what you are trying to accomplish. That is the end of my participation in this pointless discussion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add to R'n'B's explanation, a chronology:

1. Jrcrin001 created List of people with surname Carpenter in April 2010
2. From the start it listed duplicate names, rather than linking to a disambiguation page for them: there seems to be no rule or guideline saying which should be done, and similar lists of names use both systems (although it looks as if links to dab pages might be more common, especially in lists which do not divide the people into actors, politicians, etc).

See WP:STANDALONE - Lists are NOT Disambig pages. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Over the years a variety of editors have worked on the page.
2. Alafarge recently made a series of "cleanup" edits in which they (a) treated the list entries like dab page entries (only one blue link, etc - no justification for this), (b) decided to link to disambiguation pages (a choice, but going against the long-established format of this list, and would have been better discussed on talk page), and (c) in making those dab page links went against WP:DABLINK by linking directly rather than through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects (incorrect editing).

You have just proved 1) above. Someone - like the person you cite - comes into a list article and strips out list names creating a single entry which the disambig bot or editor has to come and fix. You have now proven 2). That they create a problem and then fix it citing WP:INTDABLINK. You ignore list rules for your favorite Disambig rules. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1. The bot detected that there were incorrect links to dab pages, and added a template to alert editors
2. An editor fixed those incorrect links in line with policy
3. Jrcrin001 reverted
4. Another editor fixed those incorrect links

LIST WARRING.

1. Jrcrin001 reverted again, and left strident messages on talk pages of both editors
2. Jrcrin001 replaced the entries for individual duplicated names, removing the problem of how to link to dab pages, but has plastered their complaints over various talk pages and ANI.

Jrcrin001 appears not to have communicated with Alafarge, the editor who made the changes to which they are objecting.

I suggest that Jrcrin001 owes an apology to the two editors to whom s/he has used language like By applying disambiguation rules to list articles you are violating Wiki standards and disambig rules. Please stop. You have created great confusion. Please revert all the damage you have done to list articles., and should slow down, read the policies, and check edit histories of an article before choosing which editor to contact about changes with which they disagree. PamD 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No apologies. List Rules are clear. The problem is the interpretation that Disabig over rules all. As I have cited above. This has created WP:LISTCRUFT and conflict. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that in trying to clean up a long list and going by WP:BOLD, I inadervertently stepped in a hornet's nest. I had no idea that surname lists and the nature of disambiguation titles was so controversial. I was following a practice I had seen on other surname pages and thought was sensible, namely to substitute a single disambiguating link for a slew of similar forename-surname combos in a long list, thereby making the list shorter and thus more readable/usable. But since I have no dog in this fight, I will stop dealing with this altogether. As far as redlinks go, I have been making a practice for awhile now of adding new biography pages to surname pages as a finding aid, and one thing I keep running across is that people who aren't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages page of their own are inserting their names in surname lists (or their friends are doing it for them; not that it matters which), probably assuming no one would notice. So, again, it made sense to me take these redlinks out. And no one has ever notified me directly that either of these practices was problematic; this discussion is the first I've heard of any of it. (And I hope I am not making yet another error in posting here, as someone who is not an admin.)Alafarge (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to understand. Please review Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. And I apologize that I did not include you earlier. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• And I suggest that trivial stuff like this not come to ANI. Can grownups please try a bit harder to resolve such cosmic problems before running to mommy and daddy? EEng (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• or Uncle Fester. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Please, if all trivial stuff was kept off ANI, there would be no need for the noticeboard... Tis the season to be cynical, falalalala... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Security concern

I received this message on my talk page; an IP accusing me of making an edit on his talk page, today. I tried to investigate to see what I might have done (by accident) and the user page shows its history with one edit credited to me, looping back to MY talk page. My contributions shows no edit to this IP user page. So this is a most confusing loop of unsubstantial accusations and misdirected history. Is this a breach in the security or some other manipulation? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything. What user page are you referring to? Prodego 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only seeing the IP's edit on your talk page, but nothing that looks like you (or someone faking you) editing their page. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a trap! Because the IP doesn't have a user page, clicking the IP shows his contributions, not his user page or a diff. Normally you'd expect to see a page or a diff or a history of that page but because it's an IP it's howing his contributions. Nothing to worry about. Just read the top of the page where it says it's his contributions and not a user page, history or diff. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo I created a talk page and user page. I bet it looks different for you now. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More Dodgyness

More dodgyness, just like some previous dodgyness.
User:Nimmu23 and User:Zestmind
These two SPAs are likely the same person. Both followed the same sneaky method to introduce there adverts into Misplaced Pages.
Start a sandbox.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

After waiting a period of time create an article.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Hijack a unrelated redirect.

dif deleted. (Barbara Khozam) Zestmind

Nimmu23

Move to new location.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Change target of resulting redirect back to what was there.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Both also created short user and talk pages on the same day as they introduced their spam to mainspace.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Is this the MO of a new shills sockfarm? Am I right in guessing these two are too old for a checkuser at SPI? Anyone seeing the like still happening? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in {{Confirmed}} (if sockpuppets). Hence, a few blocks are in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: The accounts are indeed stale when it comes to the Checkuser tool.--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply

This user/IP has been persistenly adding unsourced content to various articles and continues to do so after a final warning on his talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

• 69.200.228.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randall Adhemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that this fixed IP indeed belongs to the registered user: , , .

On several occasions the user has come to my talk page with walls of text, protesting about my removals of his unsourced content: archived here and currently here. On each occasion I responded that Misplaced Pages needs sources. He also went to user NeilN's talk page with similar complaints (User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus) and User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus_2, where he was replied to by users NeilN and My very best wishes. This user/IP seems to be convinded that given his expertise in certain matters, that their is no need for him to provide sources. With this particular edit he added—directly into the article—a typical talk page like comment, including a personal comment about me. At that point I gave him a 3rd level warning (). After his next unsourced edit (), I gave a final warning ().

After that final warning:

• "Things that are not in question, are well-established historically and amid the scholarly community and more, do not require citation. This is a rule of scholarship."
• "I will continue to state the sky is blue without sourcing, any whatsoever"
• (large rant), responded by tps users Paradoctor () and NottNott ().
• "DMDv uniformly suppresses, claims privilege to do so based on not being a scholar or having qualifications, claims wikipedia is not scholarship, notes suggest obvious vendetta, considering the much unsourced material in wikipedia"

In view of this last edit summary I decided not to reply anymore. This user seems not be interested in how Misplaced Pages works, he refuses to properly format talk page messages, assumes bad faith, ignores comments pointing to relevant policies and guidelines and helpful essays, attributes other people's helpful comments to me. Perhaps adminstrative action might help here? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User and IP notified on talk pages: (, ). - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:BlackJack

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

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at these edits by BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): ? They certainly seem to cross the line into personal attacks: in eight years I've never before been told that I am "unfit to be an editor here". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything that Anselm has done on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and the article itself needs to be scrutinised, including his convenient relationship with User:Reyk who seems to be on hand whenever anyone replies to Anselm. Anselm has annoyed more than one experienced editor with his condescending attitude and his over-zealous views about the BLP policy, even though he is guilty of breaching the policy himself. He does not comply with WP:AGF and, in that respect, the limit is this accusation: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". Nothing has been made up as any sensible person reading the discussion would immediately agree. His attitude is disgraceful and several of his actions are completely out of order. In my opinion, he is unfit to be an editor and should resign from WP. Jack | 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What this comes down to, StAnselm, is the pure case of verifiability. Technically nothing is verifiable unless we were there at the time witnessing it, and if we *were* there at the time, then this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. Essentially we would end up in a situation where we had *no* articles on Misplaced Pages, because nothing is truly verifiable. Bobo. 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is a reignition of . All this great drama is around the Article for Deletion discussion about S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), a former first-class cricketer in Sri Lanka. This person is surely less notable in the US than (choose your favorite candidate to the next coming election), but there are some sources about him. Nevertheless it seems that at least one side of the discussion is using arguments that are not established cricket technical expression, like "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery". It could be useful to remind some 'older' editors that being calm and level-headed could be more convincing than ... I don't remember the exact established cricket technical expression to use here. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hint to the random passerby: use https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10&user=xxx before having the false impression that any of them could be a newcomer. Pldx1 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like things have cooled. I've left BlackJack a message about making sure to stay civil in the future, which I hope will resolve this thread. Prodego 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(ec)- StAnselm points out that Jack's precious new sources don't actually say everything Jack claims they do, and Jack responds by attacking StAnselm's religion. That's fucking low, and any remaining inclination I might have had to extend this guy any assumption of good faith is gone. Also not a fan of the following:

• Re-creating an article that was deleted via consensus at AfD (and confirmed by DRV), with juuuuuuust enough cosmetic changes to persuade a lenient admin not to G4 the wretched thing, despite doing nothing to actually address the reason for deletion. If someone immediately renominates a kept article just to get another roll of the AfD dice, that would not be permitted. This is exactly the same thing.
• Places two warning templates on StAnselm's talk page at once, then "Look how many warning templates he has" along with a lot of associated bluster. Not to mention that placing the warning templates in the first place was silly tit-for-tat retaliation for this.
• Lots of personal attacks: 'idiot', 'You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable.' , 'You are a disgrace.', 'infantile sidekick'. Took me a little while to realise this last attack was aimed at me, because I don't recall having much interaction with StAnselm before we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. Not sure if I'm being accused of sockpuppetry or what, but I think deigning to answer this allegation would give it a veneer of legitimacy. Reyk _YO! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Reyk could tell us his opinion about the sentence I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery that someone used in the aforementioned Article for Deletion discussion ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC) .

• No, but I can reveal that I have no time or patience for smug passive-aggressive fuckwittery either. If you have an issue with me, have the decency to talk to me directly instead of adopting this haughty attitude. And before you start screaming "WAA! NPA!" let me remind you that I am describing behaviour, not namecalling. Reyk _YO! 14:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Two wrongs do not make a right - making a personal attack in response to a personal attack is still a personal attack. "It's behavior, not namecalling" is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that all worked, didn't it? BJ has stomped off into retirement, which makes resolution of the original issue at this AfD a lot more difficult. Sometimes we have to put up with people like him who are brusque in manner and direct in tone because they get things done. Johnlp (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Brusque" is quite the euphemism in this instance. Misplaced Pages can get along just fine without "brusque" editors, no matter what their perceived importance is. clpo13_(talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; if somebody flounces in response to being called out for blatant personal attacks, Misplaced Pages will survive without them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Scottywong's FCOI

• Scottywong (talk · contribs)
• CobraNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Scottywong#Conflict_of_interest
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CobraNet

Scottywong has apparently come out of retirement to defend CobraNet. CobraNet is currently a GA article that Scottywong created with his very first edit, and which he worked on for over two years to get approved as a GA.

Scottywong currently has a WP:FCOI with some portions of the article, being an employee of a non-notable company highlighted in the article whose publications are being used as sources.

Scottywong doesn't believe he has a FCOI in this situation, and has pointed out that he originally added the content and sources before he was hired by the company.

Scottywong hasn't disclosed his identity nor his employer, and would like it to remain so. I am not aware of him disclosing enough information about himself to make his identity apparent. He has made his employer rather easy to determine given his comments and editing given what he says here. I expect that was made in response to situations where similar disclosures where made. I'm unaware of those edits/discussions. I've not looked to see if he's made similar, coi-violating edits.

The problems that I'm having with Scottywong is that he doesn't feel he has a FCOI, he's not been following COI (especially WP:COIADVICE), and he's pushing the limits of WP:COITALK (granted, there's no evidence he's being paid to edit Misplaced Pages). Most importantly, his participation in the current content dispute at CobraNet places the disclosure of his employer in jeopardy, and creates a great deal of doubt that he can put the interests (policies, etc) of Misplaced Pages before those of his employer (especially when you know who that employer is). If he wants to keep the identity of his employer private, he should not be making the edits and comments that he has.

I don't keep abreast of how much more strongly COI has been enforced the past few years after the FCOI restrictions were extended, and have only glanced at some of the ArbCom and other discussions that led to the new restrictions. I hope editors more familiar with the FCOI changes will comment. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ronz, according to your editing history, you apparently have a determined mission to seek out the slightest resemblance, however innocent, of COI. While that is perhaps admirable, I have been following your discussions with Scottywong and it appears to me that you have practically forced him out of retirement to answer to your claims. Your relentless pursuit under the guise of polite conversation is undue and Scottywong in my opinion was wrong to even engage with you. My suggestion to you both is for Scott to relax any claims he holds over that ancient creation and let it be disfigured, even deleted, and enjoy his retirement. May I respectfully suggest that Ronz channel their efforts into helping to combat and clean up far more serious cases of organised large-scale paid advocacy such as the ongoing Orangemoody and similar issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ronz means well but is unable to communicate (as in two-way: the output system works well, but the input system is defective). I suppose disinterested editors will have to watch the circus and try to revert any excess. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• So far the read has been more fun than watching reruns on Netflix. Sir Joseph 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Scottywong had a spotless record at Misplaced Pages and built really informative tools during his stay. I'm pretty sure he's had more interaction with the policies than most of us (passive-aggressive way of bringing up our horrible editor retention stats). Now, I went through the discussions you specified and the only conclusion I draw is, you're unnecessarily drawing out his past where he was made the victim, just like here. I don't know where you spotted his wrongful behavior and I don't see it now. Nor do I know what you seek out of this ANI. He had defended Kvng who has yes, held his stance aggressively, edit-warring too, that's wrong. But I don't think, that can be held against him to slam sanctions. I don't believe I've had any personal interaction with Scottywong before, so hey boy, no COI here. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Scottywong made his COI statement in May 2012. I have no interest in looking why he made it. He brought it up, not me. I am very cautious when it comes to avoiding any outing, but if editors feel otherwise, please provide diffs or the like so I can improve.

Apparently he is less that familiar with our policies when it comes to spam (granted, the last two are questionable].

He's employed by a company that he highlights in the article, and reverted to retain the portion of that content currently under dispute . These reverts violate COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Deleting an external link to the subject of the article seems rather stupid. Further, you seem to be hounding him, and I seem to recall where he says he does not have any COI so you really need to lay off your claims. You seem to be the problem editor here. Sir Joseph 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the external links: He followed me to articles to challenge my routine cleanup of them.

He wrote, "Also, at the time that I originally wrote this article, I was not employed by the same company I am employed by now. So, when you say that I used my own employer as a source, that's not accurate. At the time that I actually wrote that article and used that source, they were not my employer. " I'm not saying his original edits violated FCOI, I'm saying the diffs above do, and he's confirmed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who added all that content (haven't gone through all the diffs) but the stuff restored by Scottywong does read like an advertisement, uses peacock terms and there's light puffery. I'm unsure about my stance now. But, let us not insinuate just because Scottywong has declined to provide any information about his employment, he isn't required to do so. Also, adding external links is fine, but I've barely seen anyone do so and in many cases (read: not all), it's people promoting themselves. Also, I agree with Sir Joseph when it comes to the hounding issue, take it down a notch. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Scottywong:. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet prior to other contributions. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Revamping of article in progress. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed lede, History and Advantages and Disadvantages sections. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WillShowU

WillShowU appears to think that he can issue edicts unilaterally in Indian cinema articles, and the result is persistent disruption. I will point out that the user has been active since only November 30, 2015, made a few edits at a few different articles, but then really and hit the ground running. This is a pattern often seen among people who work in editing rings. They often do diverse editing early on to get past the autoconfirmed filters.

• Here he removes a box office value from a film article's infobox with the edict "worldwide gross is added after full run". I try to explain to him that common editing practice is to update this value as new information unfolds. There's nothing at Template:Infobox film that dissuades this. He doesn't reply.
• Here he removes the gross values from the infobox again, explaining "worldwide gross can be added at the end. Please." I warned him about that again. No response.
• Here he changes the box office value, but the reference used shows a range of 145-150. He picked the higher number instead of presenting the range. I asked him why he didn't present the range. He ignored the question.
• Here he again removes the box office gross value from the infobox, commenting "For God's Sake, listen to me. I dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page. We will add gross at the end, otherwise different people will come with different sources, vandalize the page or start an edit war. Please use your brain."

Editor needs to be clearly edified that this is a community project, that he doesn't get to unilaterally fabricate rules and issue edicts, that he can't edit war, and that he can't attempt WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Between me and other admins, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a sock of someone, although I have not yet determined who yet. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that he made this edit where he introduces content lifted verbatim from Times of India. So integrity is also an issue here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The user is an WP:SPA having edited article only related to the film Dilwale (2015 film); might also have WP:COI somehow or be a paid editor and might need a disclaimer per WP:PAID. I have dropped a note on their page regarding this. Lets see what they reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, he uses the edit summary: "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand." If this is as cordial as he gets, we may have a problem. There certainly do seem to be strong elements of ownership here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And the really sad thing about this, is that he had to backpedal on his obnoxious bluster after he realized he was wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaand here's another delightful tidbit. He's unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a sufficient source for box values. If anybody changes the gross or source, they must explain their edit and give a better and more convincing source than this (not Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi etc.) The Indian cinema task force is fine with Bollywood Hungama. They're not happy about Koimoi, but it's been very difficult to enforce. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm convinced now that this is a sock of WikiBriefed Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• WillShowU blocked for 48 hours. If they should stop editing after the 48-hour block, as WikiBriefed did in November, I guess that would be further suggestive of sockpuppetry. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC).

User:Jisteele

Back in October 2013 the above user was temporarily blocked at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his or her contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this IP is the same person, with the same kind of bad edits (very minor, with no Edit summaries). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse

College Football Data Warehouse the website that we link to for their stats is listed by Google as actively distributing malware. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse is an excellent website, arguably the best for American college football historical schedules and win-loss records, etc., for teams and coaches. Unfortunately, their website security is abysmal, and the site has been repeatedly hijacked by third-party hackers for distributing malware over the past couple of years. The problem seems to affect our links to the site rather direct visits to it. You may want to speak with Jweiss11 and Cbl62, who have been in direct contact with the website's creators and maintenance people in the past. They need to take a more pro-active approach to website security, or WP:CFB is going to have to consider completely de-linking all of our articles because we cannot in good faith recommend the site to our readers or use it for linked references if they cannot address their security problems in a more effective way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You could use WebCite or the Internet Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles

User:Anjo-sozinho has for, I believe some years now shown a pattern of disruptive editing on pages concerning the Portuguese monarchy, in which he furthers the claims of a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I and claiming to have been made an heir to the throne by him. Although these claims are highly doubtful, specially the last one. He has repeatedly insisted on adding information about this woman, who called herself Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança to various articles without consensus about whether the information was a) properly sourced and b) within the scope of the article at all. Most recently at: Carlos I of Portugal and earlier at House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He also has caused considerable trouble on the pages of present members of the House of Braganza by deleting dynastic titles and moving the articles to names that omitted those, this because he apparently feels their claims should not be acknowledged. The articles involved were among others: Infante Miguel, Duke of Viseu, Infante Henrique, Duke of Coimbra, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Maria Francisca of Orléans-Braganza, Duchess of Braganza. He must know that he has no consensus for the notability or the veracity of the claims made and he mostly refuses to seek it. There have been 3rr incidents in the past. His operations on these pages are one big exercise in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and frankly I don’t see his behaviour changing any time soon. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have placed an EW and a final DE warnings on their talk page. If they resume reverting, I would say to please refer to 3RR for a temporary solution in order to settle this and gain admin attention simultaneously . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Callmemirela. The thing is that he is the one adding information and I am the one who is reverting, so I feel at a slight disadvantage. But I'll get over it :-). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudohistory edits by anon user

Hi, all! Please review edits made recently by IPs

• 77.49.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.1.108.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.149.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.49.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.128.160.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.85.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

He/she might well be a sole person alternating his IP, focused on the same football club artcle (Panathinaikos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and the continuous removal of a certain phrase, without presenting documentation or providing inadequate/offensive Edit summaries. A similar attempt in the corresponding Greek WP article took place last summer –including far more abusive language– and it was succesfully dealt with (further information at your disposal). Although there has been a warning via User talk:178.128.160.241 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), he came back this morning to remove the said point, though it had been revised (previous version in the article by other user: 1, version by me: 2).

I'm afraid it is not just a case of Personal research, POV, edit warring or 3RR. As can be easily understood by reading a summer 2014 discussion in User talk:188.4.153.227 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (in Greeklish, but an English translation could be provided if you wish), the forementioned phrase contradicts a very recent and much disputed theory concerning who or what was the inspiration behind the introduction of shamrock as emblem of the above football club back in 1918/1919. Apart from revealing that this theory is nothing but a 2/3 year-old creation by the owner of a no longer existinging football fans web page (not surprsingly, 188.4.153.227 may be the owner himslef), he actually admits that it was "established" THROUGH its introduction in WP! A totally undocumented contibution, since all sources used now are more recent than the site's article and the introduction in WP! Furthermore, the user he is discussing with believes that these sources do copied WP – an opinion for which he was literally attacked for (who are you to say so? You have no evidence, so it's rubbish...). Needless to mentioned that the single interest of 188.4.153.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in WP, was again Panathinaikos FC article and especially "protecting" the hypothesis from being removed by skeptical users.

In case you need further information, please do not hesitate to ask for (my Talk page in Greek version is here). Thank you in advance for your time, interest and future actions. Merry Xmas to us all!!!

PS his/their attempt of creating pseudohistory by taking advantage of –or even exploiting– WP's expansion and popularity, will be presented via our Forum to editors of Greek version and many of them will recall last summer's incident. Let me know whether you prefer a translation of just my initiall post or a briefing of discussion's evolvment. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Panathinaikos F.C. semi protected for one month without prejudice to what might be a correct revision. Technically , Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης you are well into a 3rr but I will not block you, but let this be a stern warning not to let it go that far again and report such issues here before it does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to the above warning: Stelios, please be aware that, no matter how questionable the statement about the Shamrock symbol and the role of that Irish guy may be, the statement you tried to push into the article to counter it is both (a) heavily ungrammatical English and (b) itself a piece of unsourced WP:OR. This is not the right way of handling the questionable claim. If you think the sources cited for that claim are all unreliable (I take it you consider them a case of what we here call "citogenesis" , and you may well have a point about that), then the solution is to form a consensus on the talkpage for removing the entire claim, not to try to neutralize it with a self-made counterargument in the article that is itself unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PA in Persian

Hey, this edit contains unbelieved amount PA in it. Can you do something about it? :)Ladsgroup 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I can translate if you want. :)Ladsgroup 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Google translate gives smth which is very negative against Iran indeed, but I am not feeling comfortable blocking a user based on Google translate. Do we have Persian-speaking admins?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I guess, since it's two people (three, counting me) already and we've tried it on translation sites (I've checked on a few other translation sites too, to be sure), just revdel and if anything comes up, then maybe discuss and chill? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I revision-deleted it and mailed oversight. I am still not sure about the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I've checked previously, and there are no enwiki admins who speak Persian (or at least none who advertise it on their talk page using babel. Brustopher (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I warned the user, and this is probably about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Traitor" in a BLP article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please take it to the talk page. This is not something to be discussed here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

GreenBeret65 and SheriffIsInTown want to describe Hussain Haqqani as a "traitor" in the lead of this BLP article. , , . When I point out that it is a conetentious label, their response is that I should get the term added to the list . - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the text from the lead. These cats better take it to the talk page: this is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out that it is well-sourced and it was added by GreenBeret65 was reverted by Kautilya3 saying it is unsourced but when i went in to check i found it to be sourced since it was removed describing it unsourced, i reverted him saying that it is sourced, if there was some other reason given for the revert by Kautilya3 then it might have been a different case but at this point i find that text as sourced and the term "traitor" not in the "Words to watch" list. Sheriff | report | 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Dude, what are you even saying? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Please point out what you did not understand and i will try to explain as best as possible, i really thought i was using English language though. Sheriff | report | 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of English language, the word "traitor" was used with two sources where this word is just not present. A dictionary was used in edit summaries as a justification, but that's just original synthesis. On other words: reinsert that again and be blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to "not to use" the exact words as in the source as it becomes copy violation and write it in your own words or am i understanding copyvio wrong? Sheriff | report | 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but that's not the problem. You're also not supposed to interpret the sources and come to interpretations that aren't explicitly in them. Especially when it come to biographies of living persons. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So, how would you interpret the text "Husain Haqqani was not loyal to Pakistan"? Tell me your interpretation because that's what the source says? Sheriff | report | 19:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not censors. If someone (and they should be identified as the speaker/writer) says it, and it is their voice it can be reported as their statement or opinion. It can also be disputed if someone says to the contrary. If it is a flat statement of fact then it should not be said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If we can do something like that, and I'm not too sure, it should always be "according to xxx he was not loyal to Pakistan". That would at least need consensus between editors I think. But even then I'm not sure if it's ok to repeat accusations by third parties. The source seems to be the website of a newspaper. I think it's problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Crazy idea all, take this to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Source is the news piece by a major Pakistani newspaper quoting a well known commission report which declares a Pakistani citizen "not loyal to Pakistan". According to this the source becomes secondary because it is reporting a primary source and it would not be in violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP. I don't see any reason why it should not be mentioned except mere belligerence by a few editors.

By the way, i like your phone! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

83.220.238.225

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

Can someone please revoke talk page for User talk:83.220.238.225 and extend the block? This IP came up with the interesting concept of vandalizing WP:AIV by repeatedly removing the reports of their own vandalism, and is now removing notices from their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Now revoked and rangeblocked for six months. -- zzuuzz 18:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02: Contested WP:RM closure followed by forum-shopping

• Midas02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Talk (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Midas02 contacted me on my talk page to ask me to overturn my closure of a requested move discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva.

The discussion on my talk didn't go well, so I closed it and pointed Midas02 to WP:Move review.

A ping from another editor alerted me that instead of using move review, Midas02 had opened a new RM discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation).

I closed this new discussion on procedural grounds as forum-shopping, and pointing to WP:Move review both in my closing note and in the edit summary.

I also left a message Midas02's talk, again explaining that WP:Move review was still open, but that forum-shopping is not how things are done.

Midas replied at length that I was engaged in "bullying and the abuse of admin rights", and reverted my closure with an edit summary accusing me of "aggressive action".

I reinstated the closure, again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW in the edit summary and left a further brief note on Midas's talk page, again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW.

Today, Midas02 has again reverted the closure, with edit summary "The bullying by BrownHairedGirl will stop now".

I have done my 1 revert, and that's me out. I am not used to a contested closure being regarded as bullying by an admin, but I'll let other admins decide how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02 notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the closure again and warned him about edit warring. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately "bullying" has managed to become one of the "I Win words". (Which, in addition to the obvious, means those who use it in that fashion are trivializing actual bullying.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user evading infinite ban of former accounts User:WaterIsland resp. User:WaterIsland95

I want to inform you about the case of the disruptive IPs 85.103.155.148 (talk · contribs) and 88.251.102.7 (talk · contribs), possibly also 81.214.42.5 (talk · contribs) used by an editor who is more than obviously evading the infinite ban of WaterIsland95 (talk · contribs) and its previous incarnation as WaterIsland (talk · contribs).
Content-wise, the disagreeements aren't huge. A recent example: the user repeatedly claimed that Finansbank was already owned by Qatari QNB Bank while the purchase is only expected to be completed by Q3/2016, as per the Financial Times source. Other edits by the user are helpful though, so the user seems to be primarily unexperienced and stubborn, rather than bad faithed.
It still happened quite some times that an edit of the user proved controversial, including a number of wrongly sourced files uploaded by User talk:WaterIsland. And whenever an edit proves controversial, the problem can't be resolved as the user proved unable or unwilling to resolve any disagreements by discussion. There is also no apprehension of Misplaced Pages rules, though carefully briefed on User talk:WaterIsland95.
I really did my best to draw that user into a conversation, but finally failed to get the person to cooperate. When the person finally answered, the answers were derisive rather than cooperative. I have to inform you about the case now, partly in order to protect myself from potential harassing, as the user feels offended from my discussion offers and has stated that "this was just the beginning." I guess we have to block his IP range or find any other way to deal with the problem this user poses and may continue to pose. --PanchoS (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

These three are all Turk Telekom IPs but are from unrelated ranges, hence there's no opportunity for range block. I will block the IPs for a short period and will semi-protect the article Finansbank which appears to be their sole interest at this time. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the stop-gap measure, Diannaa! I reviewed all the edits again, and have to confess that I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these are really edits by the banned WaterIsland (talk · contribs). Finansbank might also have become a honeypot for casual IP contributors, particularly from Turkey. WaterIsland has been focussed so much on Greece topics that the overlap may well be a coincidence. So while semi-protection for the article is a good thing, I guess we need to unblock the IPs. I really apologize for the noise… :/
Regarding the banned WaterIsland, we'll have to wait a few days to see if that user accepts the ban this time, after there has not been any kind of response on my notice. We might want to leave the case open for a few more days to see if yet another reincarnation pops up or not. Best wishes and again sorry, PanchoS (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission

I have complained about his behavior before but no action was taken. Can I request more decisive action please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? BMK (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from examing a few of the recent ones), Eeekster is tagging them correctly. All of the images I looked at appeared to be uploaded by someone other than the creator, and they were credited to the subject of the image, not to the creator (who may be the same person, but that is unlikely for photos). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One tag does not make disruption. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All three of the images you cite in the previous comment were tagged by Eeekster in October, and have not been touched by that editor since then, after the tags were removed and replaced with an OTRS notice or a license - so these hardly seem relevant now. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying this is repeated disruptive behavior. The tags were repeatedly reinstated (edit-warring behavior) until another administrator intervened. The OTRS tags were in fact unncessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

They were originally licensed to begin with. (Creative Commons 3.0, self-produced) Eeekster seemed to have a problem believing they were created by me, simply because I used a full-frame DSLR, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and decent composition. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the problem with the self-portrait is the question of whether you actually took the picture or not -- for instance by setting up the shot with a tripod and timer and then walking into it -- or whether you had someone else take it, in which case the ownership of the image might be debateable, and you might have to show that it was a work made for you by hire. I think the "self-portrait" question is a rather trivial one, and Eeekster should not -- in general -- be tagging such images for permission, as they are de facto owned by the subject (you). There's no particularly need for Eekster to be quite so pedantic about it that it becomes an issue, unless there are reasons to suspect that something untoward is going on in general. I don't see that as being the case here - but I also don't see any need for any kind of sanction for Eeekster beyond perhaps a word to the wise or, at worst, a mini-trout. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In some cases (but not to any current files uploaded to Misplaced Pages) I set the settings on my camera (and my lens), set up the lighting systems and off-camera flashes, and ask my friend (a fellow escort) to adjust the focus and press the shutter, giving clear, direct instructions. Who owns it then? ;-)

For the last image before that, I lost the original RAW file (plus exported JPG) when I had my laptop stolen by ex-boyfriend last year and only had the crappy local versions hosted on my escort ads lol. That's why it looks too oversharpened. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the self-portrait aspect, we shouldn't really doubt that, but we have had issues with what is called "flickrwashing" - people will take high quality photos that are from a press agency and definitely NOT PD or CC, post them to flickr, tag them as CC-BY, call them their own, and then either they or someone else will upload those to commons, hiding the copyvio. For a new-ish editor to do offer high-quality photos, we do have some bit of doubt, and the ORTS step is merely a formality. I would hope that in the future that if you (Yanping) do contribute high resolution photos that the fact that ORTS has demonstrated you have this capability that editors should not doubt that you have the camera equipment to take such photos and this should not be a problem again. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Misplaced Pages since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tag + 2 disruptive reverts by Eeekster on File:Yanping Nora Soong self-portrait.jpg, despite the fact they were clearly made by me.
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing Main St, Kissena Blvd, and 41 Av crowded intersection.jpg
• Tag + 3 disruptive reverts (violation of WP:3RR) on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg
• 2 disruptive (re)tags on File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg
• among many others Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This was pre-emptive because I was expecting more reverts by Eeekster (which no one took action with last time). However, if he doesn't try to tag my image as unsourced or unlicensed I won't request sanctions. Also, in my self-portrait, I am holding a camera. The lens is photographing a mirror. (d_i = d_o) The subject *is* the photographer. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards