Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 11 January 2016

• 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering , and . Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me , and .
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Misplaced Pages should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon  14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I was fairly critical of FLCC in my comments. I don't approve of their rudeness, or lack of willingness to discuss. Certainly, if a talk page discussion is started, they should contribute to finding consensus, and refrain from edit-warring in the meantime. That's what we all should do. I also agree, in general terms, with the point made above: "Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here." When I referred to "dropping the stick" I was referring to the pursuit of sanctions as a "solution" to an editing dispute. The lack of response here at ANI maybe indicates that this is perhaps not yet an ANI issue, and that WP:DR would be a better route if talk page discussion is not fruitful. Thanks. Begoon  11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Begoon. He was warned for his major civility issues in the previous ANI. Unfortunately he has not take that seriously. SO, what would you do? Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd carry on editing, adhering to policy, and establish whether my edits had consensus with talkpage discussion. I'd understand that just the ability to point to a source didn't make it reliable, or necessarily worthy of inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'd pursue WP:DR before calling for sanctions, and I'd realise that I am not the only one who notices when editors don't behave well, so I don't need to fight battles when I see it happening. These things generally work out over time. Patience pays off. Begoon  12:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All those policies are applicable only if there is a TP discussion and the editors actively participating it. In all cases coming to ANI, however, an editor should start the case and whether other editors are seeing those destruction can not justify refraining from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background. By the way, I did not ask for sanctions until I saw that he asked for sanctions. Anyway, the thread is getting too long. Let's not make it longer. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tireless edit warring and BLP violations by FreeatlastChitChat

I am pretty sure, either there are issues with competence or IDIDNTHEAR that are leading FreeatlastChitChat to wikihound other editors and create unnecessary edit wars. He is violating BLP on Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by falsely claiming people like Sanal Edamaruku, Tarek Fatah, Amartya Sen, Meera Nanda and many more to be critic of religion. While the template had been protected because of his edit warring and rollback abuse, he resumed edit warring without even sorting out the issues raised on talk page. He came to this template by wikihounding my edits and his only motive was to edit war with me. He also made personal attacks like "totally lying his ass off", yet failing to justify his violation of WP:BLPCAT. I think that it is the time when multiple editors indeed have problem with the numerous policy violations of FreeatlastChitChat and I am supporting that another block is necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 You have already been told by a Wikpedia administrator that to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. You are the one obsessed with this article and your personal version of it which only you and one other person share as compared to almost 7 other editors who oppose you based on wikipedia policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLP. You have refused to talk to anyone on the talkpage, and when I opened up a request at WP:DRN a week ago, you refused to accept that too. For you, only your view matters and you have decided not to accept any other view.

Even though a TALKPAGE is the right place to discuss this I will tell you what is wrong with your view of this template. I have already told you that We do not SOURCE ANYTHING in templates. Templates exist solely BASED on the articles which populate them. Just consider the article of Sanal Edamaruku who according to your reasoning is not a critic of religion. Just read his article. It says that

1. In 2012, he was charged by the Catholic Archdiocese of Mumbai with blasphemy. He moved to Finland to evade his arrest.
2. Edamaruku has carried out investigations and demonstrations which helped expose frauds, mystics and god men.
3. Edamaruku has been critical of India's blasphemy laws, describing them as "relics of colonial legislation" which have been abused to "hound and silence" intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs.

ALL of these facts are well sourced in this persons article. How in the name of all that is good and pure can you exclude him from a template listing critics of religion. @User:Begoon this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day. A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas has refused to accept the advice of a Misplaced Pages admin, He refuses to engage in debate at the talkpage, and refuses to participate in DRN. Just what is a person supposed to do here? @User:Slakr you unbanned me when I said I will adhere to 1PR, when you come online just explain to me how am I supposed to work with this kind of hostility? A COMPLETE refusal to participate in any debate and a complete refusal to even look at the facts which are written right in front of his eyes. What am I supposed to do? And this is not on just one article, every religious article is like some kind of holy shrine to one or two fanatics who treat it like a religious artifact which should be revered by all, they do not give a single thought to wmf:Resolution:Controversial content and think that if something offends their religion, it should be just removed ALONG with the editor who dared to insert it in the wikipedia article And a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded until he is forced to leave the wiki or is pushed into a corner until I say something harsh which is at once reported to ANI. Perhaps it is high time the other side explains their actions as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the above statement from FreeatlastChitchat wherein he states "A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas" which is EXACTLY what HE has been doing at the Racism_in_Italy, specifically the fact that he chooses to delete/revert all mentions of a racist author, Cesare Lombroso, being Jewish, when a) he self-identifies as Jewish b) he wrote an entire book on "anti-semitism" c) he contributed many articles to Jewish publications and d) he is referred to by most historians/academics/biographers as "Jewish-Italian" or "Jewish"...all of which have been heavily sourced and cited. So, in other words...pot meet kettle as they say.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet that admin failed to provide a source about Sanal Edamaruku. By putting up this original WP:SYNTHESIS about only Sanal Edamaruku you are not proving how your WP:BLPCAT violation about these many people is justified. Many editors have asked you to "provide sources" on talk page that would support them to be a critic of religion and you have failed to do so because your biggest aim on this template as well as every other article that I edited and you joined in was to bother me. Your disruption is only wasting others time and not doing any good. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article . I just copy pasted them. Any other objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that every time you evade from saying why you had mass deleted those reliable books (some of which I listed on several occasions) is clear to all the editors. If there were no problem in your behaviour you would not be blocked four time in a year and I don't want you to list the sources here because they are just examples. The main issues are your civility problems and your not actively participating the TP discussions to reach consensus. You did of course broke your promise of "adhering to 1RR" as it is evidenced. Sentences such as "this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day" and "a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded ..." are called Victim playing. Mhhossein (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has also experienced WP:HOUNDING and edit-warring at the hands of this user, I feel compelled to add my voice here. On the topic of Racism_in_Italy FreeatlastChitchat has reverted several edits without participating on the talk page (where there are EXTENSIVE discussions in place) and chosen to simply undo a vast amount of work compiled at the request/challenge of other participating editors with opposing views. I asked for mediation on this topic to gain a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_Italy , to which he declined stating "I would like to ] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors." which speaks to the fact that he is not willing to compromise or engage in discussion to reach a consensus or have the real facts/timelines be known. This editor is a MAJOR POV-pusher who sides with other like-minded individuals (most likely sockpuppets as has been alleged here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive ) and his edits are absolutely contrary to scholarship and consensus-building. He constantly threatens others with denouncing them for "edit-warring" when he is in reality the one engaging in this behavior (as his previous blocks will attest). I would strongly encourage yet another block and possible ban from certain topics (anyone can take a quick scan through his history, and it will be very obvious upon which topics he constantly seeks to impose his POV).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And we have another editor who has a strong need to put his religious POV into articles. For editors who are just going through this discussion without following the links, The request for mediation has been declined as Trinacrialucente is undoing the edits of three users, yes gentlmen, my edits are endorsed by two other editors, with only one editor trying his best to push forth a religiuos POV. Furthermore, Trinacrialucente has displayed absolute bad faith by stating that I have sock puppets. The SPI archive clealry shows that when closing the SPI an admin noted the fact that the reporter was lying, he also said that "These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks.". I am quite sure that before he posted this comment Trinacrialucente had already read the message about his request for mediation being denied, and his SPI going nowhere because he posted this comment at 22:40, 8 January 2016 while the mediation bot informed him about the rejection on 15:55, 8 January 2016, while the SPI clerk informed him about the futility of an SPI at 01:10, 8 January 2016. So it is obvious that he came here out of spite, being angry at me for having prevented his POV insertions. Even Though I have grown a highly durable and thick hide thanks to the various bad faith comments, threats and insults which seem to be the ammunition used by most POV pushers. I think I have the right to ask this guy one single question. So I would like to ask Trinacrialucente, 'DO ANY OTHER EDITORS AGREE WITH YOUR EDITS OR ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE REVERTING THE "POV PUSHING" OF THREE OTHER EDITORS?. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two others have supported my edits. Feel free to take a look. : ) In fact you probably should have done so before you went on that...direction. All it really did was support our case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm,,, no, you are wrong. The most recent history clearly shows that UnequivocalAmbivalence and RatatoskJones are Reverting your edits, not supporting them. UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly called you out saying "@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop." So my question still remains. If you feel that there are editors who have supported your edits just post a diff where these editors reverted the edits which removed your material. For if these editors who support your edits do really exist, they must have reverted me, or the other two users, when we "edit warred" to remove your "correct edits". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Support taking administrative action: The reported editor is unable to constructively participate discussions of the talk pages. Also, his/her behavior is not based on etiquette. In the summary edit of Nader Mahdavi page wrote: "‬SAFF V please stop your ridiculous reverting".Saff V. (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Comment: Saff V. has failed to mention that he did not read WP:MOS when he was asked and had to be explained on the talkpage how the MOS works, he then admitted that he was wrong and changed the text according to my wording. His own words were @FreeatlastChitchat:Yes, It is right. So, I edit the titles based on your comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never asked you to explain your reversion, I'm just focusing on your uncivil comments, a point mentioned by some other users.Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But you yourself accepted that your edits were ridiculous! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you used again bad word in your answer.Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Err... what 'bad word'...? _Fortuna 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Rather than yet another block (they don't help, FreeatlastChitchat is blocked all the time and just continues) I would support a topic ban on all articles in some way connected to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Dissanayake, Samanthi (2 June 2014). "The Indian miracle-buster stuck in Finland". BBC. BBC.
2. Shaffer, R (March–April 2013). "Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Rationalism: An Interview with Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist. Retrieved 2013-02-23."Blasfemia, libertad de expresión, y el racionalismo: Una entrevista con Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist/Europa Laicismo. March 2013. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
3. Sarkar, Sonia. "Gods of Bad Things". The Telegraph. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
4. Ryan Shaffer (15 February 2013). "Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Rationalism: An Interview with Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

FreeatlastChitchat gaming the system

Even while this discussion above about the very frequent policy violations of FreeatlastChitchat is ongoing, the user engages in a new trick. Having been involved in repeated edit warring at Muhammad, FreeatlastChitchat takes advantage of a very new WP:SPA who has already sided with him to edit war against Trinacrialucente , , . Now, first the SPA changes the lead three times , , and is reverted by three different users who restore the consensus version. Then FreeatlastChitchat jumps in and reverts to "his" version and then immediately requests page protection . Frankly, I find this kind of behavior dishonest. First of all, there was no dispute except for the one created by FreeatlastChitchat at the SPA operating in sync with him. Second, if a user wants to request protection, I find it very bad form to first revert to their own version instead of the established consensus and then immediately request protection to make sure their own POV "wins". This is combination with all the edit warring discussed in the long sections above makes me suggest a topic ban on articles connect to Islam for FreeatlastChitchat. The user has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and taken up far too much of ANI's time already. This user is here to right great wrongs, not build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - on everything related to Islam or religion as whole. He is still edit warring by making pointless edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• More Religio-Political POV First of all this is bad faith level 9000+. Just take a look at my edits and those of the so called SPA here and marvel at the great difference. According to my count, there is a NINETY SIX POINT SEVEN FIVE PERCENT difference between the two version. Furthermore my actions stopped an edit-war, made the article better and restored stability. I will just post what a completely uninvolved user said about my changes and let the closing admin/other editors gauge what I actually did. User:UberCryxic says about my version "I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for" here is his statement. I think you should read what the first line in the protection notice reads "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I think every experienced editor knows this. Furthermore your statement that "This user is here to right great wrongs" is actually quite true to be frank. Removing POV from articles is something I have always done, and wish to continue doing. This is an encyclopedia, not some religious website where everything is "too holy" and "nothing can be touched". If you do not like my edits, talk about them as per policy. The entire time you have been accusing me of bad behavior, you have cited not a single policy which prevents me from doing what I did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of bad behavior. So have a lot of other users, which might explain why you have been blocked repeatedly and why there are several ongoing threads about you. As for this incident, I think I stated it pretty clear. You had been edit warring heavily yourself on the article, then reverted to your own version and immediately requested that version to be protected. You may not like what I say or not agree with it, but don't pretend it's not clear. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud 😆😆😆! Can you please check the difference between revisions here to know why I am Laughing Out Loud! The version user:FreeatlastChitchat reverted to is actually itself the version of user:Jeppiz. I was surprised when I saw this report while checking the recent contributions of user:Jeppiz who seems to have a bad habit of fabricating & falsifying events. I actually intend to report user:Jeppiz for slandering and personal attacks.--Explorer999 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Explorer999 is the WP:SPA I mentioned who already has a long history of personal attacks such as the one above. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? He has clearly shown that you are the one lying here. My revert was to your version of the article and your complaint about it is the height of bad faith. To be frank you should strike your comments after such an egg in the face situation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What personal attack?" For starters, calling other users "liars" as he does , and as you do above, is a strong personal attack. However, this is not about him, nor about me. It's about you, but as usual your response to threads about your disruptive behavior is to try to deflect it by personal attacks against other users. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a thread about it but this thread (not started by me) is about your constant disruptions, evidenced by diffs provided by several users. It's rather revealing that you have nothing to say in defence of yourself and just continue to engage in the same behavior that got you here. However, what you fail to understand that even if your revert would be to my version (it wasn't, although very close), it wouldn't change a thing. My initial comment was about the behavior, not about being right or wrong, or agreeing with me or not. WP is not about winning, and I've reported users for violations even when I agreed with them. You seem to think it's a content dispute. It's not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying about someone who "is extensively lying" that "he is extensively lying" is not a personal attack. When you stop lying, people will stop saying that you are lying, but when you continue to lie, then what do you expect the others to say about you?! Do you expect them to say that you are telling truths when you are not!--Explorer999 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Undeclared Paid Editor - Jsherlock

Please see diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ravenswood_School_for_Girls&type=revision&diff=698415720&oldid=698253897 and User_talk:Jsherlock. Seeking assistance on how to induce her to declare her paid editing position. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the edit summary this might be on the edge of being a Legal threat. SQL 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eh, I don't see that edit summary as a legal threat (although it mentions "courts", it's poorly worded but not unambiguous). I am not seeing direct evidence that proves that this account is being paid to edit Misplaced Pages. All I see is what appears to be a single-purpose account. Ariconte, do you have any diffs that provide direct evidence that unambiguously proves that this account is an undeclared paid editor? ~Oshwah~ 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I used the Google search terms "sherlock ravenswood sydney" which finds a LinkedIn profile.... which is explicit. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat or not, paid editing or not, the accused edit was quite proper. The edit she removed was not NPOV, most likely was NOTNEWS, and certainly was not within school article guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do agree that the LinkedIn profile pretty much screams, yea, she's a paid editor. John from Idegon (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I performed the same Google search, found the "off-wiki" location described, and could still not establish direct proof that indicates that 1) This user is connected in any way to the off-wiki location, and 2) that this account is being paid specifically to edit Misplaced Pages as part of their job title. Remember, AGF - we have circumstantial evidence at best; we do not have any direct evidence. All I see is a potential COI, and no indication that paid editing violations are occurring here. ~Oshwah~ 11:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two points: (1) Not so much a "paid editor" as someone who works for and at the article subject and is in their full-time employ and does their digital marketing. This thread belongs at WP:COIN rather than ANI. (2) While the material removed from the article in that edit may have been proper to remove, the material added to the article in the same edit most certainly was not proper to add. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any updates to this thread lately. Unless anybody has additional details or concerns, I believe that a COI warning should be left for the person but that's about it. There is no evidence to prove the accusations presented in this ANI, and hence I am marking this as a preliminary resolved discussion. No administrative action is required. Am I wrong? Is this not resolved? Please remove the tag and let me know. ~Oshwah~ 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Template:Resolved isn't appropriate for ANI; it's for simple non-controversial edit requests on talk pages. Since ANI is always inherently controversial, it's better to place a recommendation that the thread be closed, if that is your recommendation; then an admin can check and close the thread if warranted. I personally believe that Ariconte should have placed this complaint on WP:COIN (where it belongs) rather than here. Since the problems with this SPA employee have been going on for over a year and a half, the article talk page should get the "involved editor" tag and so forth. However, someone has posted a mild COI notice on the editor's talk page. If she does not directly edit the article further, perhaps the situation is OK as is. If it recurs, please report to WP:COIN. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

From a COI perspective, 86.166.167.76 (talk · contribs) and Jsherlock (talk · contribs) have edited only this article. JSherlock may have a COI, having added some brochure-like material. Those two don't seem to be supporting each other; this is probably not sockpuppeting. The article is currently at full protection, reflecting a minor edit war between LauraJamieson (talk · contribs) and John from Idegon (talk · contribs), experienced editors who edit many school articles. The possible COI editor is not currently involved in that edit war, although their deletion may have started it. So this is now more of a content dispute than a COI problem. All the arguments center around whether the critical comments of the Head Girl, as cited in the press, should be in the article. That seems to be the only content in dispute. I don't think WP:COIN can help here. John Nagle (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence. I'm away from regular Internet :-) . I agree this should be closed.... my desire was to inform / assist Jsherlock. It appears she does not read the talk pages.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerted POV pushing attack and socking of banned user at Race and Intelligence and Richard Lynn

We have a sitiuation at the pages about Race and Intelligence that need some attention from users with tools. In the past few days two new accounts have turned up at the pages Sombe19 (talk · contribs) and 維基小霸王 (talk · contribs) pushing a clearly "hereditarian" "race realist" POV and promoting established fringe sources and authors - under the tutelage and advisership of an IP editing from an anonymizing Gaditek IP range that is veiling geolocation (themost recent is 103.47.145.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also 103.47.145.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The IP is clearly Captain Occam (talk · contribs) who has routinely used off site coordination to orchestrate the insertion of his pov into articles. The style of argumentation closely follows Occams style (detailed lawyering, POV, calm demeanor (most R&I socks are anything but calm)) and reasoning (including arguments he has made in the past about how to "neutralize" the biography of notorious race scientist Richard Lynn) Today after a 1 month hiatus he posted at the site which shall remain nameless to complain about another sock that was confronting the IP at the R&I pages - thus clearly demonstrating that he is indeed the IP. I am currently traveling and do not have time to deal with this or with an SPI investigation, so I hope someone else might take a look. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: That the IP range and pure VPN service is similar to one used by another sock on this occasion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive246#Block_of_IP_range.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Statement: I have never been asked by others to edit such articles, except the ip user's encouragement on my talk page after my edits on N&I:

I hope you'll continue to participate in these articles. You seem knowledgeable and level-headed, and the articles need more people like that. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never been asked to edit such articles through discussions on websites, IM, mail nor any other ways (except for the above encouragement).

I have never been in contact with the IP user (except for recent public talks on Misplaced Pages), Captain Occam nor Sombe19.

--The Master (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not actually suggest that Occam/103.47.145.151 had recruited you. But he has clearly been mentoring you, and you have followed his instructions almost to the letter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The only suggestion I've accepted from the IP user is to report puppet accounts who was later shown to be linked to long-term abuser Kingshowman.--The Master (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And to propose the Rinderman 2013 survey as a source for scholarly consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I found that source when searching for updated version of

Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137.

Although later I found he/she already mentioned it in User_talk:Sombe19#The_Snyderman_and_Rothman_survey from your contribution log.--The Master (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, the 103.47. IP is clearly a soc of a banned user and taking advise or suggestions from him is generally a bad idea and could get you sanctioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I only took one suggestion from him/her. And CU has domenstrated the suggestion was right. If he/she really were also a banned user, it's better to domenstrate that. By the way, thank you for teaching me the distinction between demonstration and proposal. I expect to learn a lot more things from you and other users.--The Master (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP is pretty obviously Occam. I don't know where he got the two new meat puppets from, but at least Sombe19 has been trying to make some blatantly racist edits and talk page comments in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add my comments - I think Volunteer Marek is right. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I also have been participating in the White Privilege article. Was Captain Occam interested in that article too, or is Richard Lynn the only intersection between his edits and mine? 103.47.145.169 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think I'm finished participating in the Lynn article for the time being. I commented there because Maunus had edited the lede against the manual of style, but he has suggested a compromise there that is acceptable to us both. However, I hope I can continue participating in articles that aren't related to race and intelligence, because the suspicion that I'm Captain Occam seems to be based entirely on my edits in that single topic. 103.47.145.169 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I love how you worded that to *suggest* you're not Captain Occam without ever actually *denying* that you're Captain Occam. "Was Captain Occam interested in that article too" and "the suspicion that I'm Captain Occam seems to be based entirely on my edits in that single topic".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I respect about Occam, I have not caught him lying yet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) - you might want to block the entire VPN range used by Occam here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandals of pages music

, --Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked them all for disruptive editing but, Giubbotto non ortodosso, don't you start also. Pinging Binksternet, for formality's sake. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems that Giubbotto non ortodosso has been editing while logged out: Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43, Special:Contributions/82.55.247.27, Special:Contributions/82.51.122.88 and Special:Contributions/82.51.120.173 are from the same area of Italy, doing the same sorts of edits as our friend. Which is genre warring without references. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

i only do occasionally rollbacks, i never do edits like Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43, Special:Contributions/82.55.247.27, Special:Contributions/82.51.122.88 and Special:Contributions/82.51.120.173 --Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I add, it looks like you wanna help some vandals that edit without a source where there is, like here, but i'm not accusing you, i'm just saying that your observation it's wrong doing an example--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority

Quick note: I'm posting a quick summary as well as a collapsed detailed explanation.
There is a conflict which has been ongoing at this page for several years now. I've known for some time that there are people who mistakenly think that any appeal to authority (which would necessarily include WP's policy on citing reliable sources) is a fallacy, regardless of the nature of the appeal, the authority, or the participants. One or more of these people seem to have recently established ownership of this article, edited it to suit their view, and are fighting against any attempt to correct it. I believe an administrator is needed at this point, because the arguments have never progressed past the point of these editors claiming that the sources are all wrong. I (and one other recently, and several others over the past few years) have been trying to make them understand the issue, but to no avail. Even when I quote the sources directly, they either ignore it, argue with the source, or claim that the quote means the opposite of what it says. Recently, I have been almost the only one arguing for the sourced definition of the term, and it's becoming more and more difficult to reign in my frustration at the complete lack of ground the other side is willing to give. A longer explanation of my involvement and the issue is collapsed, below.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Appeal to authority is basically a philosophical concept concerning formal logic. In formal logic you can't make a syllogism or a statement that says that A=true because B says so and he should know. Basically whether the authority is an expert or not doesn't matter when it comes to formal logic. In formal logic you go all the way yourself and basically that's not always the way we work in daily life and certainly not the way we work on Misplaced Pages. We're not in the business of making syllogisms here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but, first, Misplaced Pages does need to discuss formal logic properly. Second, the argument from authority also applies in science, consisting of dismissing a new theory because it is inconsistent with old theories (authorities) rather than submitting to experiment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Thank you. Your final two sentences are perfect summations of my position with regards to the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is a fallacy in informal, not formal logic. You can make a formally valid syllogism that say that A is true if B says so. For example:

1. If B says A is true, then A is true.

2. B says A is true.

3. Therefore, A is true.

This is a formally valid modus ponens argument. Remember, formal logic is fundamentally concerned with the implications between statements, even false statements. Thus, it will investigate the logical implications of even false statements (such as (1) often is). Original Position (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The short version, not containing any diffs, doesn't make the case that there is article ownership behavior. The long version is

The assertion of editing against consensus is untrue. A review of the talk page and the talk page archives will show that there has been a consensus for years to include the fact that the argument is not always a fallacy. I am merely the most active current participant. The current state of the article is relatively recent. Additionally, at least five other users have supported my position either on the talk page, by edits, or in edit summaries within the past 7 months, whereas the opposition consists of two registered users and one to three IP addresses. 33-45% is not a consensus. That may not represent a consensus in my favor, but it absolutely does not represent a consensus of the opposing view. Additionally, I have never understood that WP:CON ruled to the exclusion of WP:V and WP:OR when those policies conflict. If WP is to be ruled entirely by popular opinion, then what use is it as an encyclopedia? Finally, I would like to point out yet again, that the article as it currently stands makes the case that the Misplaced Pages itself is a collection of fallacies, and does so using the argument that it explicitly defines as a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't thoroughly read the article yet and that there may very well be something wrong with it. However, Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in philosophy or formal logic. I think it is important to separate these two issues. As Robert McClenon has written above; "Misplaced Pages does need to discuss formal logic properly". And as such it should be described in its own right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed there isn't consensus against the original poster's edits, that is all the more reason why a Request for Comments would be an appropriate way to resolve the content issue. If there is indeed article ownership behavior, then reporting that behavior with a few diffs rather than a hidden wall of text would be a better way to request admin action. I suggest that this discussion be closed with advice to the original poster to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's more to it than ownership. The collapsed portion contains diffs showing canvassing, as well. I suggest you read it. It's not as long as you seem to think it is, unless you insist upon reading quotes from 14 sources which I provided. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I agree. The article should explain how the argument works, and what its features are in both formal and informal logic. As things stand, the article defines its features in formal logic (rather poorly, though that's due mostly to the sheer number of edits recently), then proceeds to insist this is the end of the matter. If you take a look at the article, you'll see it doesn't contain a single example of an appeal to a false authority, but only of cases where legitimate authorities happened to be wrong, or their authority was improperly applied to the issue (being used to dismiss evidence, for instance). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to say that I believe progress is being made on the page. Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version with MjolnirPants. But instead of being willing to compromise and discuss, they quickly get impatient and pull out of discussions or decide to escalate. MjolnirPants has more or less said that the only version of the page they'll accept is one which fully aligns with the view he holds on the issue - building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way. FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version Which edits were those? The edit removing a reliable source which I quoted to support my position, or perhaps one of these edits reverting changes I made to the article? , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Or perhaps it was the edits which reverted changes by others users who agreed with me? , .

building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way Kind of like trying to build a consensus with someone who states that broad agreement among every cited expert is actually a minority opinion? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

All I'm seeing in this thread (both long and short editions), and in the talk page, especially by FL or Atlanta, gives me a strong suspicion that we're in a Dunning-Kruger effect situation. I'll keep it short: the weight of sources talking about it being a fallacy is because people are wont to use appeals to authorities in deductive arguments (in which the appeal is a fallacy), but it's a different situation with an inductive argument. If you don't understand this, you need to read up on the subject a good deal, and further tendentious editing in favor of your misunderstanding will not be tolerated. Nothing wrong with editing a subject with which you're not profoundly familiar, but repeatedly reverting others based on your own misunderstanding is profoundly disruptive. And this one is even worse, introducing an outright hoax: having watched the video, I can assure you that the source does not address the issue of "speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise". This, therefore, is your final warning: Perfect Orange Sphere and FL or Atlanta, if you persist in these editing patterns, a block will result. I strongly suggest that you either stop editing in this subject area or that you restrict your editing to obvious tiny fixes (e.g. spelling) and talk-page discussions. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the conduct issues--I'm not familiar enough with wiki's norms to do that--but on the content issue, MjolnirPants is correct. The primary content dispute, as I understand it, is about whether all uses of an appeal to authority are fallacious, or only some. Of course, you could have the view that appealing to authority is always fallacious, but this is not the consensus view in philosophy. Mjolnir has already cited many sources for this, but to sum up, the best online philosophy guides (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities." , both written by professional philosophers) say that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. Furthermore, standard textbooks in Intro to Logic classes (eg Hurley) also acknowledge this (Hurley says "Of course, if an authority is credible, the resulting argument will contain no fallacy." p.139 of A Concise Introduction to Logic). In other words, it is standard in discussions of the argument from authority to distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious uses of this kind of argument.

Unfortunately, this distinction is almost completely absent from the wiki article on this subject. For instance, the opening summary paragraph states, "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning...Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it. " But as shown, logic textbooks and standard guides actually teach that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. These sources, and the other sources presented by MjolnirPants, should be sufficient to justify the proposed changes to this page. Original Position (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just a bump, Perfect Orange Sphere is still engaging in the exact same behavior and I want to try to keep this section open in case Nyttend isn't able to deal with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is build a consensus and accommodate potential concerns, and the discussion and edits on the Talk show this clearly. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

Shmuly Yanklowetz

Shmuly Yanklowetz appears to be paying his staff to delete all statements that do not paint him in a 100% positive light, although the controversies section is balanced, researched, and sourced. Can you please prevent further deletions? Nothing is false, defamatory, or abusive.

This section that I removed clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP. For biographies of living persons, you need to stick closely to sourced material from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please. The article in question is Shmuly Yanklowitz. The original poster is User:184.177.112.118. There is edit-warring, mostly by IPs. Semi-protection might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has created a large "Controversy" section, which likely violates WP:WEIGHT at the very least. OhNoitsJamie 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And WP:COATRACK 69.12.26.174 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add specifically a case of WP:OUTING in this edit: written twice, above and in the "Censorship" section where the editor identifies an IP address by name and place of employment. It needs to be revdel'd and maybe more. Scr★pIron 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've revdel'd all of the user's edits and have emailed Oversight. If any friendly admins (I said FRIENDLY!) wouldn't mind doublechecking my RevDel work, I would appreciate it. I haven't done much RevDel-ing and it confuses my brain. (I'm pretty sure I picked the wrong criteria). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ScrapIronIV, in the case of RevDel or Oversight requests it's best just to either contact an active administrator directly, or email the oversight team directly, rather than posting a link to private information to one of the most watched pages on Misplaced Pages.--kelapstick 21:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - There are more instances of this same data in other edits today, I'll get together with @Cyphoidbomb: on it, and won't post here. Scr★pIron 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's one hell of a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, you are just jealous of his awesome name. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism about a related topic and left a note about this issue. Sir Joseph 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

• Moved to AN. BMK (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Edmund Janniger

A vivid deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Edmund_Janniger was closed today by a non-admin, despite the fact that it was a contentious discussion with nearly equal numbers of editors arguing for keeping or deleting the article. Per WP:NACD, a non-admin should not attempt to close contentious discussions. Additionally, the discussion was still ongoing and there was clearly no consensus reached, so the editor's choice to close as keep was procedurally incorrect (could only be closed under no consensus).

I disagree as to any relevance to the discussion still being ongoing. The discussion can be closed, even if still ongoing, after seven days.

Can be closed after 7 days if there is clear consensus one way or another. If no consensus is reached, the discussion is normally relisted. But that's nor relevant here anyway - the discussion was relisted.

The real question is whether it should have been closed as Keep, which it was, or as "No Consensus". Since No Consensus results in a Keep, is it worth making an issue about the close?

It makes a fundamental difference for any future renomination. kashmiri  02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion but another (non-admin) editor (Cachets687, who argued for keeping) is now reverting. Please someone with more authority than me could take a look at the way the AfD was closed, and either restore the AfD or close appropriately as no consensus? Many thanks. kashmiri  01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this sort of issue is what Deletion Review is for. Take it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Things take ages there ;) kashmiri  02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision to keep was made by consensus following an AfD debate which was relisted 3 times. Voices to delete often came from dormant accounts that reappeared for the discussion. Kashmiri has made edits to a closed AfD debate. Comments regarding an article made following the closure of an AfD debate can only be written on the article's talk page or via other appropriate discussion pages. It is also important to note that Razr Nation, who closed the discussion, was acting in accordance with WP:NACD. Razr Nation is an experienced editor; Kashmiri is not an administrator. I have reverted the misguided steps taken by Kashmiri and have posted on the article's talk page. (WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should, as a rule, only close discussions if they are fairly experienced editors, and have participated at previous deletion discussions...Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO.") Cachets687 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As User:Cachets687 was involved in the discussion, they should not be taking any actions regarding the discussion. I'm reviewing the discussion now. Nakon 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick clarification: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO." per WP:NACD. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-closed the AFD as No consensus. WP:DRV is that way. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thanks for stepping in and solving this issue. → Call me Razr Nation 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, DRV very rarely overturns a "no clear consensus" close ... one problem was that while there was a majority of "keep" !votes, there were some "delete" !votes from participants who are not normally Misplaced Pages active editors, which I found odd. Collect (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There were a few delete !votes that may have been from external sources, but I found that there were enough legitimate editors that !voted delete and had significant arguments to warrant a "no consensus" outcome for the discussion. Nakon 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat

Unfortunately we now have THREE separate threads about the disruptive behavior of FreeatlastChitchat. After his edit-warring behavior evidenced (yet again) on the Muhammad board, where I made a change, was challenged, showed my proof/citations on the Talk page, but was still reverted immediately after the change without the editor even looking, he began to accuse me of edit-warring as is his MO (evidenced in his history and on the two other ANI reports here). Rather than continue the discussion on the Talk page, he issued a warning on MY talk page to which I told him NOT to post on my page again https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat. He then immediately did so, simply to bother or disrupt our activity. If this was just one example, I think we could all just talk it out. But there are now THREE SEPARATE ANI incidents on this editor. It is time for all of us to deal with this issue as it is completely unscholarly and disruptive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ( and ) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Zachlita harassment, personal attacks

After Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive, in which it was apparent to me and Brianhe (talk · contribs), based on what we could see at the time, that Zachlita (talk · contribs) was a sock of Spacecowboy420, Zachlita has begun a campaign of WP:HOUNDING against me. It appears Zachlita's account was created to assist Spacecowboy420 on the article Dodge Tomahawk which grew in a a protracted dispute, which led to a AN/I complaint by Spacecowboy420 against me. Zachlita, monitoring my contributions, followed me from Dodge Tomahawk to AN/I to speak against me.

On an unrelated article, I added some photos I'd taken to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Spacecowboy420 followed me to that article, so he could revert. This led to an edit war over removing US English from the article, for which Spacecowboy420 got a 24 hour block for 3RR violation. Another editor who has been aiding Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers appeared, and argued against me on the talk page. Like Zachlita, 72bikers had joined Misplaced Pages recently, jumped into the battle on Dodge Tomahawk, followed me to AN/I, and then followed me to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Next thing you know, who should appear but Zachlita, monitoring my contributions to see where else he could argue against me.

In an unrelarted article, a new editor added some unsourced performance claims "based on personal knowledge" which we routinely revert. I also removed some material tagged since 2014. I added a standard "welcome-unsourced" message to the new editor's talk page. The new editor replied asserting WP:TRUTH and expert knowledge, typical of anyone who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Who should show up, but Zachlita? He added encouragement to add more original research to articles, and made a personal attack that "some people think they own wikipedia and aint nice to new editors."

I removed the bad advice and personal attack, and warned Zachlita to stop making personal attacks and hounding me. Brianhe has previously warned Zachlita for civility violations on Dec 24 and again and again on Dec 26. Zachlita next restored the uncited performance claims to Honda SS125, which I reverted and warned Zachlita again for adding unsourced content, and carrying on personal grudges and harassment. He responded by restoring the personal attack to the new editors talk page.

I don't think there's any point in me reverting or templating any more. A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers or Spacecowboy420 at this point. I expect we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

all the editors mentioned in this report edit motorcycle articles, and we all watch eachothers edits and turn up on the same articles. i dont agree with some of dennis edits so of course im gonna revert them.it aint personal.and dont call me a sock again plz. you made a sock report and it was proven i aint a sock.you just dont like people who dont agree with you Zachlita (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noting briefly that I concur with Dennis's assessment of the involved editors' behavior. Zachlita's latest sarcasm-laden rejections of my offer to try to find common ground on which to solve a literal one-word dispute show that there are some serious misunderstandings of how collaboration on Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. This follows prior remarks that indicated poor understanding of community norms of civility and consensus-building like this and this. I'm a bit flummoxed as to how to move forward when faced with an attitude as inflexible as this. Brianhe (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't stalk or hound anybody, Zachlita. I watch my watchlist. I gave you links to the harassment policy and you made the choice to ignore it. You didn't find any of these article on your watchlist; you found them by looking at my list of contributions and finding ones you could pick fights over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

this is about dennis and brian not agreeing with edits.first sock reports and now this. me and other editors didnt see a need to change wording, so youre saying im inflexible and have civility issues. this is about content not about me. Zachlita (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see how you might be unhappy about the SPI but it's not an excuse for retaliation by stalking. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground is another thing you've been repeatedly directed to read. These links to policy and guidelines are not magic spells that Wiki editors throw around or cards we play in a game. You're supposed to actually read them because there's stuff there you need to know. When you're told "you will be blocked if you continue to ignore this policy", you should listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just annoyed because consensus isn't in your favor. You try to police every motorcycle article and take people to ani when they don't agree with you. You're the subject of civility reports and 3rr reports so don't come across as an injured party.you don't get consensus so now you resort to fishing for blocks.Zachlita (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating the failed argument of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility. The closing editor, Chesnaught555, said "Take it to COIN. This has gone on for too long. Blocking Mr. Bratland would be punitive to say the least. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK I think." You should have read DROPTHESTICK and followed that advice. You should have read and heeded the harassment and battleground and civility warnings. You are not a newbie and have been repeatedly warned that the way you have been going about this is going to get you blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I got dragged into this. But I take offence to that I am just following someone around. Dennis why have you been speaking badly of me and never notifying me of the discussion. Is this how you treat or speak of editors that disagree with you? I think what should be really discussed here is mr bratlands behavior . What gives you the right to write your novel theories and opinions have no bearing and much much more. Dennis has a unwillingness to accept consensus. Even when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with dennis . He writes a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender . Even when majority disagrees with him he feels that for some reason he deserves some concession in his favor accept a good comprise, and move on. Maybe if his behavior were less obtrusive he would have less conflicts with other editors. Not sure what to make of this A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers. What is this to imply? What gives you the right to leave this on my talk page? Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another warning that you need to heed. Please read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. You took note of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility and picked out 3 editors whom you chose because they expressed negative attitudes towards me as an individual. Because you thought they'd side against me, you canvassed them here, here and here. The guideline says "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)" is inappropriate. Combined with your pattern of Wikihounding, incivility, and tendentious editing, canvassing to stack votes is likely to get you blocked form editing. If you have trouble believing me, I'm sure experienced editors like Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs) or Skyring (talk · contribs) can convince you that these rules apply to your behavior, and you should stop.

  Please find some other way to build an encyclopedia and avoid deliberate confrontations.

  The sad thing is, the discussion you were canvassing and vote stacking for was one where I had not even argued against you or taken a position on the issue at hand. I said "I can't find any top speed tests" on the 1199 R, and so didn't commit to anything. But your obsession with me made you see things that weren't there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you have to or the right to berate or harass other editors that disagree with you? 72bikers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is following and harassing who? 72bikers (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, I was about to request a block of you here at AN/I, but I felt like you had not been sufficiently warned. Since you were not the subject of this, I'm not required to notify you. Instead I posted the warnings you copy-pasted above (you need only use diffs by the way; it's more readable). I assume you got to this AN/I the same way you found your way to the other pages you have been hounding me on, checking my contributions and looking for any controversy you could participate in. And here you are, as expected. I expect you will continue to hound me, and continue to insert yourself into any topic I'm involved in until you're blocked.

IP address data might imply that you, Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita are not socks but you walk and talk and quack like socks. Perhaps meatpuppets, or a little of both. Or you all simply like to disrupt Misplaced Pages in exactly the same way. No matter what we call it, it has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What gives you the right to berate and harass me and make unsupported claims. I have only run across you on motorcycle or motorcycle related articles. Are you to imply that my interest in motorcycles is in some way related to me following you around. Shame on you sir for not allowing others to disagree with you! 72bikers (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is your uncivil behavior towards other editors. Leaving unprovoked threating messages on editors talk pages. Is that just your effort to imply some authoritative message to editors that disagree with you. If anything has been proven here is that you have scoured my contributions to find something to throw in my face.following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. When all I did was just look for editors that were not your personal friend that Vote-stack for you. To give a unbiased opinion on a article that's it. Please stay off my talk page with your uncivil intimidating and harassing behavior thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers since you're here, maybe you can explain why you templated Dennis with Wikihounding and following another user around for using the talkpage of an article he created five years ago? This seems like nothing more than a deliberate effort to block Dennis from access to contributing to articles. Despite your opinion on the "validity" of his reasons for requesting a one word change, he is allowed to use the talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So he is allowed to leave threating messaged on my talk page just because I disagree with him? For what possible reason would he legitimately have for harassing and threating me. Why should he be aloud to make unsupported claims against editors. Then go and do the very thing he is claiming others have done. How is this behavior acceptable? 72bikers (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is right there in your edit history. It's an almost unbroken record of grudge edits, on pages chosen via stalking. The canvassing is right there. If an admin needs me to post diffs of every specific instance of these policy violations, I can do that. Watchlists are a permanent record; it proves to an admin that you weren't watching any of those articles before your pals started disputes with me on them. I was hoping you would actually read the policies I linked to in the warnings so you would realize you have to stop. But I don't think you're ever going to get the point, if you're still trying to convince anybody that it's "just because I disagree". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with you sir. All that shows was I edit motorcycle pages. IF anything you are stalking my contributions and guilty of following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior . why are you searching through my contributions if not to just throw them in my face. Is it not that's what you are claiming I am doing and you just showed your guilty of doing just that. What brought me here is your unsupported threats on my talk page. 72bikers (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The meatpuppet claims are not realistic. Please note that I have not made a report regarding brianhe turning up on every ani report, sock report, talk page dispute and dispute resolution that you are involved in. Because despite him supporting your views every time, I respect his right to have different views from me. Try to have the same good faith in editors that disagree with you and we might have less time in ani reports. You do this every time. Some edits a motorcycle article that you think you own, you revert them with a scathing summary and template them, then when they dare to undo your edit or answer back, you go on a month long dispute rant, ignoring consensus and picking the rules that suit you, while ignoring those that don't. In the end you either get your way because people are tired of dealing with you, or it ends up in another ani report. You might have good knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules, but your presence here is far more disruptive than most vandals.you drive away good editors, you're unwilling to accept consensus and you turn every minor content discussion into a major dispute, unless you get your own way. That sort of attitude turns wikipedia into a bitter and unpleasant place.Zachlita (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Zach, you cannot revert edits on the basis that you "don't agree with ". Mr. Bratland has been here for a rather long time, and it is clear that he knows quite a fair amount of information on motorcycling. Personally attacking him was not the answer, nor will it ever be.

I request that a CheckUser be performed on User:Zachlita and User:Spacecowboy420. This will confirm whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring here. If it isn't sockpuppetry, it's almost definitely meatpuppetry. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

dennis has been here a long time and he knows lots about bikes.and that doesnt excuse him ignoring rules on consensus civility and 3rr. how long does an editor have to be here before they can ignore rules? im not a sockpuppet. thats a proven fact. neither are all the other editors who disagree with dennis on many articles and ani reports. thats like saying you and brian are sockpuppets because youre taking his side. Zachlita (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sockpuppet of Brian, but that's a strange comparison to make considering that people do make sockpuppets to make it seem like consensus is on their side. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter -- sock, meat, same IP, different IPs -- it's the behavior that matters. If Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers could at least express that they understand what Wikihounding, harassment, and vote stacking are, and could express intent to obey the basic policies, you could imagine them putting this behind them and going their own way, to focus on writing some articles instead of on their grudge against me. But all I see from the three of them (or one of them, whatever) is denial and shifting blame. I think they're pleased with what they've accomplished so far and intend to do more of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports? Do you prefer to edit constructively, or is it the conflict with other editors you crave? Your recent appearance here sparked a series of editors posting links to a long history of this sort of behaviour, and your attacks on other editors above merely underscore the problem. Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was I being stalked or not? Look at the diffs and you tell me. Was Zachlita canvassing or not? Are Spacecowboy420 and his pals following me from one article to the next, or not? Does it surprise you that somebody with a grudge against me would try (and fail) to get me blocked at AN/I? Does it surprise you that if I'm being hounded, harassed, and the target of vote stacking, that at some point I'm going to be forced to come back here to AN/I to put a stop to it? Look at 72biker's first edits here and at Commons. They were all blatant copyright violations. I had no choice but revert them, he took offense, and joined up with Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita. Or maybe they knew each other all along. Or are the same person. What difference does it make? Do you think it should be allowed to continue?

If 72bikers is just a newbie editing in good faith, you could have done him a favor when he canvassed you for vote stacking. You could have given him a friendly understanding of the policy he was violating and convinced him to stop hounding me. Instead, you seem to have joined up with him.

The reasons why I'm here at AN/I are right there in the diffs for anyone to see. The question is why are you always right on my heels? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, Dennis. When I saw your name come up again so soon, I looked in. I don't care what you edit, though I do mind how it is done. Could you answer the question I asked, please? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw a chance to snipe at me again? I told you why I'm back here at AN/I. If this isn't Wikihounding, what is?

Do I edit constructively? After my three stalkers went to Dodge Tomahawk and deleted every word of independent criticism and objective commentary, I responded by going and digging up books and articles and uncovering all sorts of new facts, creating a new, expanded and comprehensive Draft:Dodge Tomahawk which met every one of their objections, bringing far more balance to the article than anything they ever did. I think my work speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you answer the question, Dennis? Evading it just makes me wonder why it is difficult for you. As mentioned above, I was asked to look at the article you mention, and your agressive support of the nonsense word "winningest" in our encyclopaedia struck me as odd. I have asked you multiple times to stay off my talk page, and yet, despite the recent ANI discussion on this very point, where you were nearly blocked and promised to behave better in future, you have just done it again. This pattern of behaviour is not one that is usually associated with a constructive editor. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You asked a bunch of questions. How many answers must you have? I know, you want me to answer the question, "Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others?" You're demanding an answer to that question? See Have you stopped beating your wife, perhaps? You know two other editors worked with me on Draft:Dodge Tomahawk? A fourth editor supports the compromise on that article, but is being stonewalled by -- guess who? I've collaborated for years on things like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions and WP:MC-MOS.

I'm happy to let others judge my contributions. You have nothing on me but an old grudge that you won't let go.

I have a question for you, and for the admins: should I put all the Noticeboards on my watchlist, and whenever I see the name of an editor I once had a conflict with, I insert myself into the middle of it, and say, "Yeah, that guy, he's no good, let me tell you about that guy..."? Should I do that? Should everyone do that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not demanding you answer the question, Dennis. It's interesting that you chose to answer a different question, that's all. I can't make you change your behaviour to other editors – that's something that can only come from within. Adopting the position that it is always the other guy's fault is another evasion. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which question I didn't answer. You didn't answer my question either. Should I monitor all the Noticeboards for people I don't like? Are you sure you're helping here? You muddy the waters but will the admins have an easier time sorting this out because you came along and unloaded your old baggage? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above, friend. If you see your behaviour as perfect, then obviously any suggestion for improvement is nonsensical. Pardon my intrusion. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does my behavior have to be perfect before I get to say I've had enough Wikihounding? Would I be more perfect if I monitored all the Noticeboards for people I have it in for? I want to know if you think everyone should to that. Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw my name at AN/3?

Closing Admin Please consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions for Skyring (talk · contribs). The guy is watching these Noticeboards for the names of people he doesn't like, and haranguing them with loaded questions laden with false premises, e.g. "why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports?" It's one thing for an objective, uninvolved, third party to help resolve noticeboard issues, but Skyring is tendentiously using these boards for his own WP:BATTLEGROUND, picking his targets based on his grudges. It goes without saying that he thinks I'm the one who should be sanctioned, to which I say, again, look at the evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis whether you choose to believe it or not I hold no grudge towards you. Why would I care that you removed and informed me that some of my very first edits were not to policy that is such a trivial matter. And if anything I appreciated you sharing your knowledge of the rules of Misplaced Pages and other things wiki. Such as the talk page I never even really noticed these before. But now make it a point to check and read on every page I go to. And in doing so had come across some of your post on ram air Is this just somebody hypothesizing? or that it works at all -- I would be quite interested in learning more that. Sources? I thought I would return the favor and share my knowledge from working as a motorcycle mechanic and rider for 25 years and inform you and show the validity of these thing . And on your other post about motorcycle dry weights and wet weights .And after explaining to you and showing you sources on this information I believe you thanked me. But now that I have showed a difference in opinion from you. Or sought out someone who was not a close friend of yours for a third party opinion. Or that my opinion appeared inline with others you some how feel are out to get you I am stalking or harassing you. Would it not be true that I would have run into you on more than just the very few motorcycle pages I have contributed to. Or after reading this the any number of notice boards that you seem to be involved in. And I am only here to find this because of your behavior that I wanted to bring to the attention of the admins. Of Leaving threating and harassing post to my talk page. And why just because I choose to have a difference of opinion on a edit that to your even words. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to who you? So after all the thing you said of me here and else were these unsupported claims of sock or meat or just someones pawn or other nasty things .Then scouring my contribution for something to try and throw in my face. And the nasty threats left on my talk page. Is it not you that is guilty of stalking and harassment and just bad behavior? Born out of what looks to be paranoia. And now appears like you have some grudge against me. 72bikers (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a civility issue between Dennis Bratland and Zachlita. Why is my name (amongst others) being dragged into it? There has already been a sock puppet/master report regarding suspicions that I was in some way connected to Zachlita and/or Flyer22 Reborn Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive and the conclusion of the involved admin on that report was The two accounts are Unrelated. Closing Please don't use this incivility report to make accusations unrelated to that topic of the report, that have already been proven to be wrong. I don't wish to have any more negative interactions with you, Dennis. You, Brianhe, 72Bikers, Zachlita and myself all have similar interests and edit the same articles, surely it's much better that we act in a friendly (or at least civil) manner towards each other. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar interest? There's a few thousand motorcycling articles. Are you suggesting the articles in which I first made an edit, and then you came along after me to revert, were on your watchlist before you saw me edit them? Your watchlist can be checked to see if it's true. The evidence shows that you took no interest in these article until after I touched them, and then you followed after me and -- surprise -- found a problem with what I had done. Why on earth would anyone want to delete Talk:Liter bike if not because you were following me around? Are you denying it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't wish to distract from the main purpose of this report, or get dragged into any further personal discussions as this is a civility report against another editor, so I will make this as succinct as possible. Like many other editors, I used the "contribs" button when I interact (positively,neutrally or negatively) with another editor. It's a great way to find interesting/active topics to edit or sometimes just an interesting topic to read. You are a prolific editor and have been for about a decade, almost every sports bike article I come across has your name on it somewhere, of course I will end up on topics that you have contributed towards, even if I never touched the "contribs" button. The Litre bike page was something that hadn't been edited since 2008 and just redirected to another article, I'm sorry if making a deleting it offended you, but I thought that it was a prime candidate for deletion, it was not an edit designed to annoy or insult you. How about the Bajaj Pulsar 200NS article? You edited it, and then I went there and reverted an IP editor's contribution back to your version, in order to remove some silly promotional content. Do you also think that reverting back to your version was unacceptable? I've made many attempts to inform you that despite our differences of opinion on some article content, I have no negative personal feelings against you, no desire to take any of this personally and that I just want to get on with editing some bike articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally we can agree. You've been using the contribs button to see what I've been doing lately, so that you can involve yourself in it. Not cool. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

+

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

−

Please don't twist my words. I use the contribs button with many editors that I have interacted with, because it helps me locate interesting articles. 99% of the edits that I follow lead me to an interesting article to read, and nothing more.

I don't involve myself because of you, I edit an article if it needs editing. I edit based on content, not based on the editor. If I had blindly reverted your articles based merely on the fact that you had made the edit, I could understand your attitude - but I haven't. I have disagreed with you on some edits, supported your edits in other cases and made totally unrelated edits in other cases. 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Your last effort is, once again, a total rejection of any compromise. An editor tried to meet you half way, and you didn't even make a counter offer. You stonewalled. This is the pattern on every conflict you instigate. You track people you don't like, revert them, and if they try to discuss, you refuse to bend. Your close associates Zachlita and 72bikers follow suit with perfect regularity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear on the point at issue here. It is one word. Spacecowboy420 replaced the made up word "winningest" with "most successful", and from that Dennis Bratland edit-warred, making four reversions in a hundred minutes, made personal attacks against other editors, intruded himself on a talk page where he had been repeatedly asked not to go, and commenced this ANI report claiming that those holding contrary views were all sockpuppets of each other engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. All this over one word which has no place in a reference work. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a dishonest way to characterize what happened, and what I said. Please stop trying tracking the disputes I have with other editors so you can attack me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, I took a look at the history here and it seriously looks like you are edit-warring to include the word 'winningest' in an article. Which looks really really stupid. And by 'stupid' I mean, 'why on earth are you wasting everyone's time with this rubbish'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 was edit warring and recieved a 24 hour block for it. The issue was WP:RETAIN. I looked at every dictionary I can find and it tells me 'winningest' is US English, just like 'petrol' is UK English. Apparently some editors like Skyring think if a faceless account on the internet says, "Well, I'm American and I don't like winningest" then that trumps what dictionaries say. I thought that's how Urban Dictionary works, not Misplaced Pages.I explained that repeatedly, but instead I get called stupid by people who cite no sources, just opinions about which words they like and don't like.

Spacecowboy420 came to the XR-750 article to delete three closeup photos of the bike I added. The article previously had 7 side-views of the bike; he changed it to have 8 of the same side view, removing the 3 photos that were unique. Why? Because of who added the photos. Skyring, Zachlita, and 72bikers mobbed me at Harley-Davidson XR-750 because that is what they do: look for disputes they can join. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced a discussion at WP:3RRN. Incidentally, the last three reverts were made within a space of five minutes. Perhaps there is a temper control issue in play. I also note that Dennis seems to accuse me of being a sock of SpaceCowboy420 above, by providing a diff of one of my talk page comments and saying it was SC420's. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got to stop mischaracterizing what others say and do. You are Wikihounding me. Nobody said you were a sock. You monitor 3RRN, AN/I, and who knows what other noticeboards, and when you see the name of somebody you have a grudge against, you weigh in against them. And now you're forum shopping over at 3RRN.

I see I mixed up the diff of Skyring's comment with this diff of Spacecowboy420. It doesn't make much difference -- it's the same thing from both of them. The dispute over 'winningest' was over, and now they're both stonewalling by refusing to accept any compromise. Yet they accuse me of not being able to collaborate. If you guys are editing in good faith, why not meet Brian halfway? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you are making this appear like you are doing all this just because you are not getting your way. The edit that was proposed by your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable. Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you. so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution or better any time soon. Maybe these language issues can be discussed later under better circumstances and with no time that has pass you kept up your efforts. The only thing that has change is your effort on notice boards to get editors blocked or leave threating messages on talk page to scare. It looks as if you are doing this just to get your own way and have no opposition. 72bikers (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio material keeps on being added by this user

Hittit keeps adding copyvio material onto articles. At Armenian Genocide denial, the user consistently adds information that is a carbon copy from the relevant sources. I told him to refrain from doing so but then still adds information claiming that its "rephrased" when it is clearly not. I believe the user's contributions should be further examined. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hittit notified. Please remember to notify users if you are raising a thread on ANI or AN about them. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For Étienne Dolet edit, albeit done in good faith, from opposing view point seems easily labeled as violation. The edit has been rephrased and sourced. Based on WP:RV editors should refrain from blunt reverts and try to discuss the possible issue. Hittit (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hittit: Please read WP:3RRNO. Per the exemptions rules, ALL edits that contain WP:COPYRIGHT content must be reverted. These aren't blunt reverts, as you say it. Copyright is a policy on Misplaced Pages, something you aren't acknowledging properly. "Further rephrased" does not mean it doesn't contain copyright violations. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded and BLP

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wants to include tabloid sources, including The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail on our article on the British National Party, a controversial right-wing political party. As the material concerns living people and these are square in the middle of the definition of "tabloid journalism" I would argue that WP:BLPSOURCES therefore applies here. Would someone else please take a look at the situation then consider reaching out to Snowded and explaining BLP to him? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Some claims from those sources are clearly simple statements of non-contentious fact which is fine - while some show "editorial positions" of the original source or the newspaper printing the claims, which falls outside proper usage.

Where the claims are clearly claims as to motivation etc., they should not be used, but a simple statement that Person A visited country B is not a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220565/BNP-change-whites-membership-rules-fall-foul-discrimination-laws.html is far too editorial in nature to pass muster IMO, while

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hope-not-hate-vote-for-equality-305140 is just a 404 in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334312/Anti-fascist-protestors-arrested-packed-London-buses-following-violent-clashes-BNP-outside-Parliament.html is neither better nor worse than the editorial HuffPo cite for the same claim.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1911033/Top-Euro-Nazi-Zoltan-Fuzessys-hate-site-run-from-terraced-house-in-Gravesend.html is directly violative of WP:BLP for sure, making clear claims of fact based on opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339568/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-visits-Syria-receiving-invite-President-Assad.html is used to make a claim based on its headline and not on what the article actually states in its body ("after being invited to take part in a fact-finding visit to the war-torn country by the regime of President Bashar Assad" is not the same as the claim "BNP leader Nick Griffin visits Syria after receiving invite from President Assad" used in the footnote which is the only apparent reason for using the DM as a cite) and so on.

In short - the problem is that sources are used for both allowable claims of fact, and disallowable statements of opinion not properly attributed as opinion. And, of course, the endemic problem of confusion as to the difference between headlines of articles and the contents of articles. I hope this is clear to all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad John has brought this here although he is misrepresenting the position someone. He deleted a whole load of material some weeks ago on the grounds that BLP policy does not permit the use of tabloid sources. In fact BLP forbids the use of tabloid journalism and per multiple discussions at WP:RS Tabloids are allowed for facts although with caution. No one disputes that broadsheets are better sources. At the time I sought clarification at the BLP notice board here rather than rise to bait of, shall we say, the over enthusiastic templating of my use page with warnings. That discussion also came to the conclusion that tabloids are not the same thing as tabloid journalism. John did not engage in that discussion other that to asset he was right. We've now come back to the issue again. Despite not having taking part in the discussion I raised at BLP he again issued a warning based on is particular interpretation of policy.

Now as far as I am concerned I am not wedded to the material in question and substantially agree with Collect's statement above. The issue here is proper clarification of policy. If WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of any tabloid journal as a source then it should clearly state as such. Tabloid journalism is not confined to the tabloids and neither is everything in a tabloid journal tabloid journalism. Not the Sun, but the Mirror and the Mail do have a reasonable reputation for news reporting. Something that has been established in discussions at WP:RS on several occasions. I posted again to BLP and put a link on RS earlier today to try and get this clarified rather than rushing to ANI but I did think about it.

The other issue which I just want to note is John's behaviour as an admin. If I have raised an issue for clarification on the BLP page and he (i) does not take part and (ii) most editors agree that not everything in a tabloid is tabloid journalism then he should not be slapping warning templates on my page but should be taking part in those discussions. It really isn't too much to ask. ----Snowded 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• If User:Snowded is truly "not wedded to the material in question", and also truly of the belief that the two edits here and here are reasonable ones, then there may be a WP:CIR issue involved. I invite an uninvolved admin to review these edits (which involve restoring information on living people referenced only to the worst of the gutter press) and issue a final warning with a view to blocking if anything like this is repeated in the future. If Snowded's belief is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. is somehow capable of allowing edits like these two (which restore the Sun source which even he accepts is not permitted) then he should not be editing here. --John (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• And, sorry, I meant to note that the content issue is moot now as User:Hillbillyholiday has very commendably re-removed the tabloid material and re-sourced that which can be; I would strongly request that a further restoration of the non-compliant material (or any such material on other articles) should be met with a block. --John (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• • So after the best part of ten years of editing here on a range of articles and raising an issue of policy clarification John's response is to say that I shouldn't be editing here? Further I am to be threatened with a block? Please, isn't there something somewhere about chilling effects? An uninvolved admin reviewing that material is a good idea - but it won't resolve the current conflict between John's assertion that no tabloid material is permitted and agreements at WP:RS which say they can be reliable sources. On that we need a community decision. Oh and the statement about my belief above is plain false the issue is what constitutes poor sourcing and on that WP:RS is at odds with John ----Snowded 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that John subsequently changed "Snowded's belief that" to "If Snowded's belief is that" for which I thank him. Making it a question not a statement is appreciated. The answer is that it is not. I am solely and simply seeking clarification of the conflict between WP:RS and the reading of WP:BLPSOURCES by John (which also conflicts with that by several other editors). The content issue is partly resolved by Hillbillyholiday edits. So if we can resolve the policy issue now it will prevent future conflict ----Snowded 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies for my typo the first time round. This is AN/I where user conduct issues requiring admin intervention are discussed. There is a parallel discussion at WT:BLP where the policy (which seems pretty clear to most people on matters like this one) can continue to be discussed. If you have agreed that you will desist from edit-warring violative and defamatory content into a BLP, then I would not ask for further admin intervention, unless this was to recur in the future. However, User:Zumoarirodoka may need a line in the sand drawn for them as they have restored material which nobody has tried to justify. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, current policy allows the use of Tabloids and most editors involve in the previous discussion agree with that. You really need to stop this aggressive labelling and issuing of threats to experienced editors who are trying to get an apparent conflict resolved. I could equally ask you to stop edit warring to remove material which is sourced per current policy on WP:RS and show some respect for WP:BRD. If you want to move the question to that board I'm fine with it. Maybe this time you will actually take part in the discussion, your behaviour is in question here as well you know. ----Snowded 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John, could you please at least tell me about the material which you believe is innapropriate for me to include on the British National Party article and talk with me either on the talk page or my user page, instead of bringing it up here first and issuing final warnings to me about disruptive editing (which I was definitely not intentionally doing) without any prior discussion whatsoever?

I'm not opposed to legitimate criticism as I am fully aware I am biased against the BNP (as with the majority of editors on that article) and I try to stick to WP:NPOV as much as I can, but please be civil about correcting me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) edited 16:25 UTC

There're two interesting question on behaviour which could be asked here.

1. If an experienced editor has raised a disputed interpretation for clarification at the appropriate policy forum, should an admin issue them with a block threat to support that Admin's position in the said dispute?
2. Should an admin who is aware that there is a dispute about policy, edit war to revert long standing material without first discussing the issue on the talk page of the article concerned?

Just a thought ----Snowded 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zumoarirodoka is continuing to edit war this material in against consensus after a warning. Block, please. --John (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @John: As soon as you mentioned the specifics, I removed the material; I have no objections to removing specific material, but it wasn't explained to me personally which parts were BLP violations. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. It seems there is only one user now who does not "get" this policy. They were honest enough to admit that they restored the Sun source to the BLP to make a . I asked at WT:BLP if there is anyone who thinks the non-compliant tabloid version was better than the version we have now, and this user (alone, obviously) still seems to think that using the Daily Mail to support negative material naming a living person is ok. I predict that if this aspect of user behaviour is not clarified, this user will continue to misunderstand BLP. I would like an uninvolved admin to look carefully at this and advise Snowded of our BLP policy. --John (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You really can't stop can you. WP:RS permits tabloid papers to be used as a reliable source on factual matters. BLP only forbids tabloid journalism. In all the discussions so far everyone has agreed that alternative sources are better if available. So your statement above about my preferring it is plain false. The issue is that you think you can revert perfectly good material just because it is linked to a Tabloid source and when you are challenged you issue block threats on people's talk pages while breaking WP:BRD. Given that you are an admin that is dubious behaviour at best. Try asking for better sourcing or even look for it before blind reverting. You could also discuss issues with other editors and generally assume good faith. The minute we first encountered each other on this I raised the matter for clarification on the BLP notice board which is what a responsible editor should do. In that discussion everyone (including me) said that other sources were preferable but that Tabloids could be used for factual matters. Your contribution to that debate was to tell everyone else they were wrong and you were right. I've opened it again with a the policy statement below given you didn't want it discussed here. Taking part in that discussion as a equal participant would be a better approach than demands here ----Snowded 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy question

To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?

• Some use: Reporting of statements and other factual matters should be allowed but no commentary, ideally alternative sources should be provided ----Snowded 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for this discussion, as stated above. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • OK I have shifted it intact to the BLP page. I trust you will contribute ----Snowded 16:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Misplaced Pages articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Misplaced Pages works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W removing Findagrave links and the place of burial from articles

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

This content dispute should be continued at WP:RSN. No administrative action required. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Thomas.W is removing Findagrave links with a message to see his talk page "Rv repeated spamming of links to findagrave.com (see user's talk page).) ", there is nothing there concerning it. Has there been a ruling to remove Findagrave links instead of migrating them to Wikidata? I cannot find anything on the issue and the blacklist does not contain Findagrave. Did I miss a ruling? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Find a Grave famous people is a page I have seen that is related to this issue. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That concerns migrating biographies from FAG to Misplaced Pages. I think it would be covered in blacklisting, where we ban sites from being used in Misplaced Pages. At one time blocked NNDB then unblocked it, because they were adding their links to Misplaced Pages.

• "findagrave.com" is a privately owned () money-generating () user-contributed/user-generated () website. Anyone can add information to the site, all you need to do is create a free account there, and with 400,000 members/contributors () there's no way they can check the information. Which means it's not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages's standards and can't be used as a reference. I took a look at it after noticing that Wikihil123 has been adding Findagrave as a reference on close to a hundred different articles over the past few weeks, which I saw as active spamming. Especially since they refused to stop even after having been told on their talk page to find reliable sources. The links in addition to that that I have removed is only a tiny fraction of the total links there are to findagrave.com from here (see findagrave.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ), and were links that had been added as both refspam and external links, in some cases with multiple links to them on the same article, including 2-3 links on short stub articles. Which IMHO fits the description of what constitutes spam... Thomas.W 22:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is not spamming to add in missing external links. We have spamming controlled by our blacklist and your proposal to blacklist FAG was rejected, so it is not spam. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Basically Find-A-Grave is "a wiki that anyone can edit" and, therefore, not a reliable source. It can be added as an external link, as long as it isn't used in excess (one link per bio to the specific person). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1 user likes this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur and have routinely remove anything that uses F-A-G as a reference for something in articles with one external. As an external link is fine. I am leery of using F-A-G as a reference for where someone is buried. F-A-G is sometimes wrong. I however have left many of those references intact. IMHO where someone is buried isn't noteworthy in most cases....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just looking at WP:EL, if Thomas.W description of the site is accurate, I think it would fall foul of a few of the 'do not link' guidelines. Essentially any useful info there will either be in the wiki article if reliably sourced. If it can't be reliably sourced, why would we link to an unreliable website which adds nothing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is not a wiki, it does not use the underlying wiki software, its used MySQL. Not everyone can edit, anyone can create an entry, and other users can suggest corrections which are accepted or rejected by editors before the corrections display. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I can add that there's a template ({{findagrave}}) that can be used, but only under certain circumstances ("Care should be taken when deciding to make a link to the Find a Grave website. While photographs of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable. If there are fully reliable sources which may be used, then the Find a Grave link should not be used, or should be removed in place of the more reliable source."). And in case anyone wonders what I base my claim that Findagrave.com can't be used as a reference on, Misplaced Pages's rules say "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (my emphasis) in WP:Verifiability, which is a policy, while WP:Identifying reliable sources, a content guideline, says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such aswikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.". Thomas.W 23:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Care should be taken" is not synonymous with "must be deleted". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Findagrave.com is a reliable source for locations of cemeteries and pictures of grave markers. It's not necessarily reliable for text information, especially as many of their bios are taken from Misplaced Pages, which by definition is not a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Or in RAN's case, not on Misplaced Pages, as he cannot create new articles here, but he can there. See Arb Enforcement, there is a request there re him and findagrave now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry worded badly. RAN has contributed content to findagrave and is restricted from linking to it. So it is hardly surprising he is annoyed that someone is removing links he is forbidden to replace. See enforcement request for more detail. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am only restricted in linking to one's that I have created. Nothing restricts me from undoing his removal of links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • • OK, I see. And I'll concede that Findagrave is a questionable source for text information, hence it's not of much use as a "reference". But it's totally fine as an external link, for information about headstones and cemeteries. If this Thomas guy is removing Findagrave links from the external links, then he's in the wrong, and should be compelled to cease that activity. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Well when links contain the editor's work? Bit dodgier. But see my reply above to WilliamJE if it's valid as an EL. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
              • If he had simply quoted the source material used in Findagrave, instead of linking to the Findagrave page, would it have been acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                • Depends, assuming the info was sourced and in the wp article, it would make it pointless to use it (FAG) as an external link... I don't really understand why people are linking or using it as a source at all. The bios can't be used to reference content, and it's prime reason, the grave location, will either be available in an RS or not available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • That's not what I asked. The book cited in the Findagrave article looks like it would be considered "reliable" for direct use in Misplaced Pages, so the claim that the Findagrave article is "unreliable" would be false. And I say again, Findagrave IS reliable for grave locations. No other external link is needed for that info. Having said that, this particular Findagrave entry is of no particular value to any Misplaced Pages artice - not because it's "unreliable", but because it adds no new information - it lacks burial information, which is the whole point of Findagrave's existence. It's only value as an external link would be if the author had looked in public records or obituaries to find the burial info. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • Ah right. Well technically yes as long as the base source was fine the findagrave article would probably not be unreliable in that sense. But if we were using anything from the book we would use the book, not findagrave. If we were not sourcing anything specific, the book should be in a further reading section, rather than EL'ing findagrave. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • There's no reason not to have an external link to Findagrave, IF that link indicates burial information. Since the example you cited lacks that info, it's of no use as an external link, and certainly not something I would add to an article. The editor needs to track down the N.Y. Times obit and see if the burial place is given, as would normally be the case. Then it could be useful as an external link, though much more so if someone provided a picture of the grave marker - which, as I said, is the core purpose of Findagrave. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Fully agree with Baseball Bugs. Findagrave is a good source for gravestones, dates of birth/death and cemeteries. As such it provides very valuable information and shouldn't be removed when used in that sense. Also, there is no explicit guideline against using that site, so users should be stopped from behaving like vigilantes (there's similar behaviour going on regarding the football website transfermarket.com). --Midas02 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • One cautionary note: Findagrave is not necessarily a reliable source for dates. Even if a date is on a headstone, there's no guarantee it's accurate. Probably accurate, but not absolutely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Meh – even with birth and death dates, you have to be careful: I've done Find a Grave enough to have found headstones with completely wrong dates for either birth or death. I generally agree that it's fine as an 'External link', especially to establish the current burial location. But I'm not sure I'd try and get any other info from Find a Grave, aside from perhaps the identity of the spouse(s)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Findagrave is no better than an open wiki. It should never be used as a source. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Wrong on the first point, and it is totally fine as an external link. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Why wrong? That anyone can suggest a correction doesn't stop anyone from making the initial entry. And I never mentioned external links (although I don't like to see it there either, I specifically said "source"). - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
              • The first point is wrong because "no better than an open wiki" is untrue. But if you're OK with it being an external link, then no problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                • So you are still not answering my query. And you are now making an assumption also, which seems rash given I said "I don't like to see it there either". - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • I'll try again: You said "Findagrave is no better than an open wiki." That is not true. Your second point is not to use it as a source. I would concur with that unless someone wants to post the subject's burial info. But an external link should be sufficient for that. And if you have a problem with it as an external link, I don't see why. It's reliable for grave markers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • So, your first answer was "wrong on the first point", your second was "is untrue" and your third is "not true". No explanation regarding why = no answer to my query of "why wrong?". As for grave markers, well, I can name one relative who used it and had a headstone cleaned up only to discover that it was for someone else who bore the same name. An expensive mistake, that was. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • Untrue because it is not an open wiki. It can't be edited by everyone under the sun, like Misplaced Pages can - it's much more restrictive. The text can only be edited by the page owner, and by contributors of pictures. Text edits can be requested, but the page owner has to approve them. As to the error you describe, did you eventually find the real headstone? Was it in that same cemetery? One mistake does make for "unreliable". If it did, nothing would be reliable for anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                        • (edit conflict) Just to clarify, "Page Owner" is not the same as "Site Owner". Anyone who adds a page (and as I wrote above anyone can add material/pages), becomes the owner of that page/article, and can then prevent others from correcting errors, which in effect makes it potentially even less reliable than a site where anyone can edit anything... Thomas.W 06:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• My point was to say that you should migrate the data to Wikidata, there is a field exclusively for a Findagrave ID number. This issue is independent of using FAG as a reliable source to show which cemetery someone is buried in, and whether it can appear as an external link. The issue with any source is whether they publish corrections when they are pointed out, this is called editorial control. If we required sources to be correct 100% of the time, we could not use the New York Times. The print version has a paragraph of corrections from the previous day, and online articles have the corrections explained at the bottom of each article. The article I am reading now says : "An earlier version of this column misstated the percentage of mutual fund money invested in indexed mutual funds at the end of 2014 and 10 years earlier. It was 15.6 percent at the end of 2014, not 18.5 percent, compared with 8.9 percent — not 9.8 percent — a decade earlier." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• The other problem is that User:Thomas.W is removing both the link to Findagrave and the underlying information that the person in question is buried in that cemetery. If he thinks the attribution is in error, he should be replacing the incorrect cemetery with the proper cemetery, and not removing the information completely. He is doing it because he does not find Findagrave reliable, in his gut, in a truthiness way. If he has an alternative source showing that Findagrave is wrong, then fix the error and source it to that new reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The example cited for me a little ways up happens to have no burial info. I'd like to see an example of one that does have burial info but Thomas removed it anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

i was trying to use find a grave as a reliable source for information. it has information on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)

One I restored has a photo of the tombstone and has an image of the person, where we do not have an image of the person in Misplaced Pages. I Guess we are here to decide if all should be restored, unless they are incorrect, I have not seen any evidence presented that they have provided incorrect information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus at WP:RSN has been that Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source. Therefore it should not be used as a source, full stop. As an external link should be fine - there's even a template for that, as I recall - but that is a content dispute and is not an issue for ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

These WP:RSN links (#1, #2) are highly relevant, and support that Findagrave should not be used as a source, and only under special circumstances added even as an external link. Thomas.W 07:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what it says: "As an external link: Nota bene Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves. As a reliable source: Almost never. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Misplaced Pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I rarely show up for these kind of "who shot John" debates at ANI, but Thomas W., The Bush ranger and others are 100% correct: Findagrave.com is NOT a reliable source. This particular user-contributed source has been repeatedly discussed, and has been specifically and repeatedly rejected as a reliable source. Anyone who continues to add content to Misplaced Pages articles in reliance on Findagrave.com, after receiving a warning that it is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and after removal of that content by other editors, should be subject to being blocked for violating our policies and guidelines and for tendentious editing. Spamming non-reliable sources into the "external links" of dozens, if not hundreds of articles, and adding content to the same articles based on the same unreliable sources is a bit more of a problem than a simple "content dispute." It's a violation of core policies for which I believe this editor Richard Arthur Norton is still subject to editing restrictions for similar violations and problems on a mass scale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, January 10, 2016‎

MyMoloboaccount is topic banned from all pages relating to Poland, broadly construed. This may be appealed at WP:AN after 12 months, or to the Arbitration Comittee.

BLOCKED Resolved --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Both users make repetitive edits of similar articles, both say "blogs are not reliable sources". Both are from Australia. Is there anything that can be done about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=KrazyKlimber&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/101.182.100.189

Ylevental (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards