Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.122.209.190 (talk) at 11:34, 26 January 2011 (→User:Hobartimus' aggressive behaviour). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Unfortunate votes

I have created the article David Wood (Christian apologist) and unfortunately people started voting several hours before i was finished referencing and gave all sorts of uncited and not-notable-enough objections. I was done referencing the next day (today) but people were already voting at 12 noon. Ideally i'd like you to somehow restart the process all over or renew the voting for Articles for deletion. It was hard to find references because his name is so common. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help desk would be a better bet for this question. In any case you probably want to start off with WP:VOTE and Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And although AfDing an article quickly after creation is discouraged, it is really the author's responsibility to have a well-referenced article right when it goes into mainspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was the person who started the AfD. It was started about an hour (I believe) after the article was created, plenty enough time for referencing.

Also, being the starter of the AfD, I was not notified of this ANI thread, nor were the other editors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian apologist? What the heck is that? It's not a profession that I know of and is probably a form of POV "name calling" that is completely inappropriate in an article, especially a BLP. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See Christian apologetics and there appears to be a reference for calling Wood that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - "apologist" is not a derogatory term as some seem to think, it's a genuinely accepted term for those who defend a religion. In fact, it means something like "defender", and should not be confused with the modern usage of "apology" as in saying sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still seems rather opinion pushing and derogatory as it implies someone who apologizes for Christianity or being a Christian. So I would recommend either removing or replaced with a more neutral term. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it simply doesn't mean "to apologize" at all - "apologist" is the correct term and is a formal term used in theology. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. It's not in common usage anymore, so it's confusing people a bit here, but it's a term of art / jargon term in theology. It's being used correctly here and is not derogatory, as far as I can tell. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Farix, see the article apologetics for info related to non-Christian religions. Or G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology for a non-religious example, or Apology (Plato) for the original(?) use of the term. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I disagree with some of the things you did:

• You had no binding obligation to first raise your concerns before nominating the article for deletion, but I think you should have using one or more of the following methods:
  • Article templates (such as {{notability}}),
  • Comments on the article talk page, and/or
  • Comments on Someone65's user talk page.
• I think you should have considered that Someone65 was actively building the article as indicated by the article's page history: 16 edits in the prior 70 minutes, the most recent 6 minutes before the nomination.
• The fact that the article's creator, Someone65 is an established Misplaced Pages editor with thousands of edits. That doesn't automatically obligate you to show special trust or deference, but personally I try to give a little extra consideration in these situations. Think how you felt when you learned of this ANI discussion without any prior warning from Someone65 -- that's probably how Someone65 felt when you nominated his article for deletion without trying to discuss or improve it first.
• While the article's creator, not the AfD nominator, is technically required to provide the references, a quick Google News archive search would have shown lots of mainstream media coverage. I always do a news archive search before considering article deletion. With a common name like "David Wood" sometimes you have to be creative and specific; in this case I added the last name of one of his colleagues, "Qureshi".

Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion -- it's got good guidance on how to handle articles prior to bringing them to AfD. --A. B. 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the above by A. B.. It seems rather hasty to nomimate for deletion an article that is actively being worked on, which it was in this instance. There has been a lot of improvement made to the article and I think that some time (perhaps one week, or whatever is standard, as most editors have real world commitments too) should have been given to establish notability better before adding it to AfD. It also should have been templated to request improvement first. DMSBel (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not good advice, as these comments are characteristic of the WP:ARS point of view of how to handle bad articles, a point of view that is not universally accepted here. Other than a quick glance through a google search, I pretty much reject WP:BEFORE when bringing a article to AfD. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read ARS (but have given it a quick glance now), however regardless of that what A. B. pointed out above seems to me the better way to have proceeded, we are talking here about an article being worked on, we don't know how notable or not the subject of the article is until it is finished. If it had been found to have had no-one working on it for weeks or months that would be another matter, but that has been far from the case here. DMSBel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it should have been worked up better in user space, the article incubator, or somesuch. "It's just new" should never an excuse to retain a bad article; doubly so if we are talking about an article about a living person, which should never see the light of day until it is properly and reliably sourced. Maybe a new article about a movie or a novel could have a bit more leeway in regards to time to properly source, but there should be Zero wiggle room for BLPs. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it would have been better to have had the page underway in his userspace, if he was aware that was an option. I would not have known that either, except it was mentioned here by yourself. I think that efforts to continue to improve and establish notability should be acknowledged here.DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, "WP:BEFORE" (i.e., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion) is part of our procedure for deleting articles. Unlike WP:ARS (Article Rescue Squad), it's not just an essay. If you really think it's wrong and that it doesn't reflect community consensus, I recommend you start the process of changing it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion. --A. B. 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the requirement for proper and reliable sources is good goal to aspire to when creating a BLP, however it would be a big ask to fully source everything before putting an article in mainspace. Would an article like Bill Clinton for instance have appeared even close to fully sourced initially? As I see it: in an admirable attempt at neutrality the creator of the article here has included several sources that might be less than sympathetic to the views of the article subject (some of these might not be the most reliable). Someone65 should certainly be commended for NPOV. And other editors could learn from him. Tarc is correct in stating that BLPs do need to meet a higher standard (in terms of getting reliable sources in quickly and if possible before going into mainspace) than maybe an article about a movie, but I think Someone65 has made considerable effort to do that. DMSBel (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

AB, as you note, "Before" is part of a procedure. Not policy, not even a guideline. I purposefully and intentionally ignore the bulk of it. Clear? As for Someone65 and the article, I note that some work has been done since the AfD was initiated, yes. Not enough to satisfy the notability concerns IMO, but at least it is better than when it began. But again, that effort should have preceded article creation. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I looked at your record of AfD nominations; you had a large percentage of your deletion nominations fail. Community consensus worked against you. I commend "WP:BEFORE" to you -- you might get better results in the future.

--A. B. 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could create a notice/template for this type of situation, that says something like : Article is being worked on, please wait before nominating for deletion. Or something like that. Someone65 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could use {{Under construction}} to show that you are working on it. – SMasters (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll use that next time Someone65 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and sockpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium

USchick

USchick (talk · contribs) has continued to incorrectly tag pages for speedy deletion after being warned multiple times by editors on her talk page. Her only explanation for her taggings was the text of the A7 criterion, which was completely irrelevant to the discussion. She either needs editing restrictions for tagging pages for deletion or some other resolution. Logan _Talk 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: where was the "credible assertion of notability" in "Denys Wortman (2 May 1887-20 September 1958) was a painter, cartoonist and comic strip creator."? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A poorly made assertion I agree, but it does cite the American National Biography. Wortman appears to be notable: a Google search brings up this which looks promising. I would have declined the speedy myself. But the point for AN/I is: does USchick make too many false positives on her tags? Or is the proportion acceptable for a busy editor who tags a lot of articles and does most of them well? Kim Dent-Brown 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very quick scan shows about 30 successful deletion tags over the last three days, and six challenges reported on her talk page (it's possible there might be more where the editor declining the speedy failed to say so.) I think a one-in-six false positive rate is a little high and may indicate over-enthusiastic tagging. This account seems to have been dormant for nearly a year before starting up again in the last couple of days. Maybe she needs to review the criteria a bit more carefully? Kim Dent-Brown 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not used drawing this kind of attention to myself, so perhaps I do need to review my actions. If you review my record, there were 39 pages deleted for good cause. Six were challenged, and out of those six, 3 were improved to the point where they are now acceptable. So that's 3 out of 39. For the record, I was not on a "deletion spree," I was working off the Dead-end Category and cleaning up as I went along. USchick (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. In the last 24 hours, that is. This isn't just about the swing-to-miss ratio, but more a misunderstanding of what qualifies under speedy deletion. USChick's response to multiple warnings, declines and queries was to quote the A7 policy back to the person warning her, which seems rather amusing given that Zimao mountain and Vijayanarayanam, geographical locations - were tagged with A7. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a fairly experienced New Page Patroller, I'd have definitely tagged Mix n Blend for G11; I'm not sure how that slipped by. The We are Trans-MIssion one is right on the border too, that would depend on the admin; I'd have PRODded it myself (I'm obviously not an admin), but that's not a totally unreasonable tag. The others are pretty cut and dry, though. If USchick would like, I'd be more than happy to spend some time and work on it with her; A7 can be tricky, and it took me a while to get a full grip on A7/A9, so I can relate. I've been doing NPP for around 8 months now, I pretty well know what I'm doing, and we really need more New Page Patrollers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, but it's a thankless task, due to problems like this where the patroller is always in the wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very select few of us (I won't name names, those who I'm referring to know who they are) do a disproportionately large chunk of NPP (i.e. almost all of it); I think what we need is more things like WP:GARAGE that highlight the lighter side of it. I love doing it, but we still desperately need more people, and even one more will be great; hence my above offer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, if I understand your offer correctly, you will teach me how to use WP:GARAGE as a criteria for speedy deletion? Ok, I'm in! :) Seriously, the real reason we're here today having a discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard (in my opinion) is because the person who started this discussion is an aspiring administrator, (but no one has taken him up on his offer). So I am at your mercy, do with me what you wish, and if I can be helpful in any way, I'll be happy to follow your instruction. USchick (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll get some stuff in order and get you going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All done, please check results on my talk page, thank you! USchick (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would also refer folks to WP:WIHSD, one of the best essays we have on the subject, and one which should be required reading for NPP (imho). Arakunem 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely; speaking as an NPPer, I love the title and the message. It's very helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaxdave

NOTE: At the suggestion of User: Drmies, this thread (dealing with User: Jaxdave's conduct) was moved here. It was initially posted at the geopolitical/ethnic/religious conflicts noticeboard, where it attracted little attention. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Original thread

User: Jaxdave is an apparent WP: SPA (or even, arguably, a WP: VOA) who seems to have a major axe to grind against black pastors. His edits generally come in "spurts" about a week to a month apart, the most recent one being January 9 (in which he removed a vandalism warning from his talk page: ). Prior to this, on January 2, he rather blatantly vandalized Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King III. See . He doesn't seem to have made any constructive contributions to date, so WP: VOA would almost certainly apply. Apart from vandalizing articles, the only other edits he's made appear to be talk page soapboxing such as these: (in which he describes in detail his opinion of the aforementioned pastors, including inexplicably blaming them for Jim Crow) . Further back in time is this disturbing little screed on his talk page about "ragheads" and Israel (which was later removed by another editor): . Because of all this, and the fact that he doesn't respect BLP, I think Misplaced Pages would be better off without him. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified him of this discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Jaxdave hasn't responded in all this time, and in case I didn't make myself clear earlier: I think Jaxdave should be blocked. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a block, but I'm hesitant about doing it myself at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If the person did all these things on the same day, they would have been indef-blocked immediately. I support a block.--Diannaa 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned user User:TopoChecker and requested moves

This user has created several different requested moves recently but has now been blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. There is a discussion here about what to do with the requested move. I advocate keeping it open given the number of supports it's got as closing it for process sake seems pointless (I'd immediately start another as I support the move) while two other editors are advocating closing it (coincidently both oppose the move). Could a neutral admin take a look and do what ever they feel is necessary. Other RMs by the same editor are:

1. Talk:Baja California peninsula#Requested move Closed
2. Talk:Nawanagar#Requested move Closed
3. Talk:Bhopal (state)#Requested move
4. Talk:Athgarh#Requested move Closed
5. Talk:Kottayam (Malabar)#Requested move Closed
6. Talk:Jaoli principality#Requested move Closed
7. Talk:Bastar state#Requested move Closed
8. Talk:Pudukkottai state#Requested move Closed
9. Talk:Punjab Hill States agency#Requested move
10. Talk:Kahlur fort#Requested move
11. Talk:Colony of Virginia#Requested_move Closed
12. Talk:Superior (proposed U.S. state)#Requested move Closed
13. Talk:Fürstenberg_(state)#Requested_move
14. Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

Personally I'd advocate closing any that have only had opposes and removing entirely any that haven't had any other comments but I feel too involved now to act. Dpmuk (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the ones I struck above. The Bhopal move has only support comments, so I left it alone, and I don't have time to do the others at this moment. --RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In the discussions that remain open, I suggest striking through any comments by TopoChecker as coming from a banned user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've done that now. Leaving the comments in place preserves the sense and continuity of any discussion, but the strikethrough alerts a closer who might be unaware of this thread that the comments should be given no weight in the closng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, the actual discussion about what to do with the requested move is here. At the moment the discussion has 9 supports and 9 opposes (we obviously shouldn't accept the nomination by a banned user as a valid support) so closing it isn't really the problem that Dpmuk thinks it is. The discussion is really going nowhere, especially as the discussions between the nominator and I have now ended. As I pointed out, edits by banned users in defiance of a ban can be reverted by anyone and pages created by a banned user qualify for speedy deletion so surely that applies to closing discussions created by banned users. By continuing with the discussion we're effectively endorsing edits made by an editor in defiance of a ban and because the editor was banned, the original nomination should never have been made. If the outcome of the discussion is move, those who support the move have helped the banned user achieve what he set out to do, effectively becoming his meatpuppets. This is not something we should be encouraging. We should be providing the banned editor with a clear message that he is not going to be allowed to edit in defiance of a ban, directly or by proxy, even unwitting proxies. There's nothing stopping a new discussion, as another editor has suggested, but we shouldn't give credibility to the present one. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I had linked to that discussion above although it appears to have possibly been missed by some people. These discussion are not a vote and an admin may decide there is a consensus even with an equal number of votes like this (I have reasons for thinking the consensus could be to move but I could be seen as biased so I won't give them). If an admin wants to close it as "no consensus" because it's been listed a week and they really don't think there is a consensus then that's fine. I would object to closing on the grounds "started by banned user" or similar as that would ignore the rest of the useful conversation. By allowing the conversation to stay open we don't alienate users that have commented (by ignoring their comment) and don't make users repeat themselves in a new move discussion. All we do by closing it is waste the existing conversation on the grounds it may discourage this proflic ban-evader - which I guarantee it won't given the number of socks over the years. I also think the meatpuppets argument is assuming bad faith - I would hope every editor that commented made up their own mind based on their own assessment. Dpmuk (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The link you provided was to the move discussion, not the actual discussion about what to do. That might be why people missed it. I've probably made more comments than anyone except the nominator and I wouldn't feel alienated if the discussion was closed. While I'm sure people have made up their own minds, achieving the aims of a banned editor is effectively meatpuppetry, even if it's unintentional, which is probably what the sock was aiming for. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right - my bad I thought I'd linked to the right discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of these were closed by User:KoshVorlon, who I assume wasn't aware of this discussion so I reverted as there appears to be a rough consensus here not to close them if there were support votes. One of the re-open was done by User:Ucucha with the edit summary "Other users also support; no need for bureaucracy" which appears to support the emerging consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, per WP:BAN, all move proposals, good or bad, made by a banned editor should be closed as not moved. If an editor feels that there is consensus for a move, they should open a new proposal. I suggest closing all these proposals (I closed one before I realized that this was under discussion here). --rgpk (comment) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially given who this is (there was an ANI thread in October involving Tobias Conradi, for context) we should really shut them all down and wait for another user to make a request if they desire. As TigreTiger, Tobias Conradi created a gigantic mess with these types of moves, and I'd really rather not go through that again. And as an aside, if you see a new user with initials TC moving pages or requesting moves like that, it's an obvious sock and should be blocked and reverted on sight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's simply process for the sake of process. A good idea is a good idea no matter who it came from and there is common precedent for letting them run, it happens frequently. Which brings us to the cite of WP:BAN, of which I'll just leave it to the standard warnings about policy: It's descriptive of common practice, not proscriptive of what we do, and it can and does lag behind the community practice at times. -- ۩ Mask 17:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree with you; however, take a look at the move logs for User:Schwyz and User:TigreTiger, both of whom were Tobias Conradi socks. It takes a lot of time to clean up after, and the latter of the two socks was so bad that someone had to invent a Twinkle script to clean up after it. The last thing we need is to encourage this; I hear what you're saying, but there's a reason why this user was banned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But if Tobias's aim is to cause disruption surely there's more of that caused by re-opening an identical move request and making every one comment again. Also, especially in the case of a couple of these moves, we'd be inconvenience other editors by making them re-nominate and !vote again. Although I'd normally agree with undoing a banned editors edits in this case I don't because of the inconvenience it would cause many good-faith editors. Certainly on the two most commented on discussion I would immediately start them again if consensus does turn out to be to close the current ones. Dpmuk (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) IMO, the Kahlur fort one shouldn't even require a move discussion; it should just be moved. I suppose it's not a big deal to keep those two open, given that they're already well into the process. But in the future, watch out for what I said above with new users initialed TC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I meant this as a general note; I just realized I didn't make that clear. Sorry Dpmuk. 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this user's MO! Think this one was the third SPI I've started on them. Dpmuk (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was aware of this discussion. It's what prompted me to close the moves. I see a few got re-opened, no problem. I actually belive that per WP:BAN all of those proposals should be closed because a banned user opened them.

I disagree with them being re-opened, but I won't revert it. KoshVorlon' _{Nal Aeria} 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I can see the case for closing them even if it one I don't support and if consensus here was to close them I wouldn't be too upset. Part of the reason I reverted your closes was that from most (possibly all) you'd failed to removed the {{requested move/dated}} template so they needed editing anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I reverted the close of one discussion started by TopoChecker. I can see why RMs started by him that did not get any support would need to be closed, but the RM I re-opened had been supported by several users (including myself), and it seems more convenient to just let this one go on than to close it, forcing someone else to open another RM where everyone gets to say the same things already said in the current RM. Ucucha 00:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation / Primary Topic brick wall

We have hit a brick wall on a disambiguation / primarytopic discussion, where different WP editing guidelines are clashing creating an illogical situation. In summary, there appears to be no logical process by which editors arguing for a new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can ever reach the fair middle ground of WP:D intended to solve such debates, because editors supporting the WP:STATUSQUO WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will always ensure no consensus.

To set out the specifics of our situation:

• Palestine (region) is currently directed straight to Palestine, and has been since the first ever iteration of the page
• A large group of editors believe that State of Palestine should be directed straight to Palestine, as over the last few years the State has become much more widely recognised
• A discussion was held here and the editors supporting Palestine (region) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ensured no consensus
• Disambiguation was proposed a fair middle groud here in light of the guidelines at WP:D
• The editors supporting Palestine (region) unsurprisingly continued to hold their ground, and so again no consensus was reached
• Absurdly, the main opposing argument used was based on WP traffic statistics - this is of course a clear logical fallacy, as the existing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will by definition always have an unfair advantage
• WP:D is intended to " the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Misplaced Pages covers", but it can only achieve this if conflicting arguments can actually conclude with disambiguation
• Unfortunately, WP:STATUSQUO / no consensus clashes head on with the ideals of WP:D, as WP:D can never be reached to " the conflicts that arise", because if there is a conflict there will always be at least one editor supporting the WP:STATUSQUO WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Can anyone advise on the right next steps here - we seem to have hit up against a brick wall? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm responsible for this thread ending up here. Onceawhile was asking the closing admin how to challenge his close here and I said the only place it could be done was here (although I also advised them that I thought it was a good close). If they did anything, I was expecting them to come here and ask for a review of the RM closure (which is a AN/I issue) not ask a more general question like the above (which isn't really a AN/I issue) which should probably be dealt with by following the dispure resolution process. Dpmuk (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, and refusing to discuss properly

Ashwinikalantri has made some controversial obsolete edits to the 2011 Cricket World Cup article, he insists on keeping the controversial edits, instead of the previously non-controversial version, until a consensus has been made. I have tried to discuss this issue with him yet he is being childish and is stalling with threats of blockings, repeating the things I say to him back to me, and acting like he is an admin or that he owns the page. He keeps giving the same argument "that each World cup page needs to be consistent" however they are all out of date. Could someone please tell this user to leave it the way it was and to stop reverting and discuss to come to a consensus. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All that I am doing is trying to keep the cricket world cup articles in their original form. Blackknight12 here is trying to change all the world cup article since 1975 and removing the ODI template and adding a plain list. He refuses to discuss the issue and wait for a resolution. I have very politely asked him to discuss what he feels here. Here we can also have other people give their opinion before Blackknight12 disrupts all the World Cup articles. How can a World Cup page be out dated? It is a sporting event. It has to remain static. My multiple warnings and polite requests to discuss and then change have been ignored. --ashwinikalantri 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked the here link above so it will jump to the section (at least on some browsers we need the real page title not an alias). --Mirokado (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Current edit War at "Simon McKeon"

Today Simon McKeon, "prominent investment banker and world record breaking yachtsman" was declared Australian of the Year for 2011. This has set off an edit war bringing in Climate change denial etc. 15+ reverts(minimum!) since 12:00, 25 January 2011. #RR warnings have been issued to IP editors involved, but edit warring continues. FYI admins! - 220.101 talk 13:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a while. –Moondyne 13:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moondyne, one of the edit 'warriors' is on a 12 hour wiki-block too. - 220.101 talk 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Block needed

IP 74.68.26.91 is being used solely to add unsourced genealogical information into BLP articles. They continue to do this despite multiple requests to state their sources, a final warning on January 16, and five previous blocks. I would ask the previous blocking admin to help, however they are now retired, so could another admin kindly reblock the address to stop the continued disruption? Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

IP has been notified. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Blocked one year, since the last block was for six months, and the editor is continuing in the same pattern without ever joining in a discussion of his edits. Continues to add random-looking birth and death dates to our articles without ever explaining how they got them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sert033

User of it:wikipedia where s/he was indefinitely blocked for trolling. S/he has only three edits here of, one is in namespace 0 and is a vandalism. --Noieraieri (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't notify the user of the discussion, secondly of the three edits I can see - none of them are vandalism. I don't see an issue with this editor remaining here as long as they abide by our policies. Dusti 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that last edit is vandalism. In the hatnote he's calling Naples, Italy "Garbage City". Although Manshiyat naser is nicknamed that, Naples is not to my knowledge.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

However it's a very stale diff. Not sure action is called for unless they start up editing again.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cube is quite correct, the user has done several Naples-hate edits in the Italian edition too. I do not think it is necessary to block him or anything, but as I'm not following the English edition regularly I'm unlikely to spot eventual future vandalism. That's why I'm taking this case to your attention. --Noieraieri (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Afraid it won't help much. Unless he's actively vandalizing, no one will likely remember this post when he does start vandalizing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

S/he's not made an edit for nearly three weeks and this certainly isn't an issue that requires admin intervention at this time. GiantSnowman 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Moves by Admin User:Dbachmann at God of Israel

I take issue with User:Dbachmann Logs recent moves of Yaweh (now God of Israel) I normally would take it up with the user but this is the second "no consensus" move made at this article. On December 15th User:Dbachmann moved the page to Yahweh (Canaanite deity) initiating this discussion. I was disturbed by such behavior by an Admin but took it to be one off incident stupid move but not something worth making a big deal. Now I log on this morning and find once again with no consensus moved the page (using admin tools in the process) from Yahweh to God of Israel. I find this unacceptable behavior for an Admin as now we have had to initiate another move discussion again to move it back. Am I way off in thinking this inappropriate behavior for an Admin? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say it's outright inappropriate, but I think we need an explanation here of why he thought it was a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would let border line cases go, but the article is move protected so only an Admin can move it and this is the second incident of such behavior at one article in lest than 6 weeks both times claiming consensus that did not exist. Both time we have had to have WP:RM discussion just to move back to the original name. That more what I take issue with. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since these "issues" are related to content, in my experience it would be normal practice to raise them on article talk instead of on ANI. Otherwise I must assume this is just wikilawyering. It is never a good idea to avoid the issue and instead go straight for administrative red tape. It shows that you do not really have a case. Be that as it may, I seem no reason to repeat a content issue that belongs on article talk, and that has been discussed on article talk on ANI just for the hell of it. To call a move "disruptive" when it in fact resolves long-standing disputes and bickering related to article scope and content forking is disingenious to say the least. At least recognize that I am making an effort in best faith to resolve a hairy problem. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue belongs here as it was an admin action that was inappropriate, as TRA just explained above. The article is move protected, and you used an admin function to go against consensus. I agree that it belongs here for community discussion. Dusti 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue here is unilateral page (Twice in 6 weeks )moves without the discussion prior discussion of a move and use of Admin privilege to do it. Both times We have WP:RM that is the proper process to move it back The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these moves are tantamount to vandalism and an abuse of privileges. The last time that this happened, I was shocked, because an IP editor had made some sweeping edits against consensus for which I expected objection to be raised. Instead, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) followed their lead and did a page move. In the ensuing discussion about reversing the move, we didn't just acheive consensus, we acheived unanimity that it was a bad idea. Now this comes in the wake of some more discussion about the article's scope. It is unacceptable for him to force us to stop and derail ordinary discussion and consensus-building in order to undo his vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4@Dbachmann: That seems to be beyond disingenuous. This is an issue regarding an action, not about content. I have no idea which version of the title is correct, but I at least can recognize that moving an article which is the subject of an active dispute about its title, before that dispute is resolved, a second time, is definately something that should not be done. Calling it a content dispute may be true, but what we are discussing here is your actions during a content dispute, which involve moving an article which was fully move protected (an admin-only action) without clear consensus to do so. I have no horse in this race; I have never edited the article in question, and I have no idea which title is right or not. I really don't care. What I do care about is that admins don't act unilaterally in the case of contentious disputes, and more importantly refusing to stand and account for the use of one's tools, hiding behind some claim of "this is a content dispute". Yes it is, we are not being asked to rule on the content, rather this is a discussion of your actions in that dispute. --Jayron32 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Using admin abilities in the middle of a content dispute that the admin is involved in is a pretty big no-no. This looks seriously not good from my view of Dbachmann's actions. IMHO the page should be returned ASAP to it's previous location from before the inappropriate admin action was taken. It should not need a RM to move it back, when it should not have been moved in the first place. (And, to stress, from a content POV, I don't give a flip where it lives. My comments are purely process based.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that various related articles have been significantly modified by Dbachmann after the move, so a straight move-back will not resolve the issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm disturbed at this diff. "I realize that there is plenty of childish Kurdish nationalism, just as for practically any nation of the 'second world'. It's somehow endemic to the region, I must assume."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with nationalists from that region? Do you have any idea of how much crass history-faking is going on in the Balkan states, Greece, Turkey etc.? It's a huge problem for our articles about these regions, because for many topics there is little information in neutral sources, and the supposedly scholarly sources from the region are full of bizarre phantasies which, of course, contradict each other. You can thank Dbachmann, as one of very few admins who regularly work in that area, for the fact that it is handled with something akin to the no-nonsense approach of the German Misplaced Pages, rather than the English Misplaced Pages's standard "anything goes until we have total chaos and a huge Arbcom case" approach.

No comment on the page move. Hans Adler 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools in a content dispute. Take it to arbcom. -Atmoz (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

... Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you facepalming the misuse of tools, or the concept that misuse of tools should be taken to arbcom? It's a little unclear--Cube lurker (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess why HTFY is facepalming is in response to the vicious reaction to Dbach. May I remind everyone in this thread -- some of whom are relative newcomers -- about Dbachmann's reputation, which Hans Adler set out above? While Dbach's input into this matter is (IMHO) short to the point of being cryptic, I urge everyone to wait until he explains himself before they declare him guilty & sanction him, then hold a trial. The worst case here is that Dbachmann finally lost his cool & over-reacted in a matter that could be calmly resolved without the loss of his useful contributions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a well expressed, clear opinion. Much more valuable than making people guess what 'facepalm' is refering to.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

His contributions are one thing. Using the admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute is something else. This is exactly what "normal" users are talking about when they say admins are above the law. Any admin should know better than to use their tools in a dispute they are involved in. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, as the OP I really dont see a need for De-syopsing being an effective solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talk page to reverse his actions. He should also agree to self-ban from using his tools in this topic area again, as this is the second instance of unilaterally moving the article, and the second time there is a nearly unanimous consensus opposing the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually facepalming that "abuse of tools" means "instant ArbCom case." My indentation was off a bit. If every potential abuse of admin tools went straight to ArbCom, the arbs would never get anything else done! That said, Dbach's non-response here is also facepalm-worthy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he stopped editing for the day eight minutes after the message I left on his talk. Hopefully there will be a more reasoned response from him forthcoming in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that not every sysop misaction should go to ArbCom. That being said, if there's multiple abuse of sysop tools, then either an ArbCom case or Community Consensus for desysop'ing needs to take place. Dusti 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As the OP, I agree, I see two extremely stupid actions. Based on several comments here it seems He is an Admin in good standing. Whether or not there is a wider pattern that would require action more than this thread is another question entirely... I dont see any one here presenting evidence of wider pattern of "wrong doing" thus Arbcom intervention does not seem warranted at this point. I think Beeblebrox recommendations are good advice that Dbachmann should take heed of. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading those talk pages, I see a great deal of sophistry, lack of focus on improving the articles, and confusion over scope, with very little discussion of the best way to reflect the best scholarly sources about the several topics. I see Dbachmann engaging in a lot of the latter sort of discussion without stooping to the former. Seriously - read through Yahweh (disambiguation) and linked articles, Jehovah (disambiguation), God in Abrahamic religions ... and you will still only scratch the surface. This is a complex topic that has been discussed in various ways for hundreds of years, and Misplaced Pages readers deserve a fair and historically accurate presentation of each aspect. This needs an article improvement drive or project-of-the-month for a WikiProject, not ArbCom. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Dbachman did what he did and I don't support it - the world certainly expects an encyclopedia to have an article on Yahweh. Britannica has one. Unfortunately, I don't think Misplaced Pages will. There's just far too much passionate commitment to various views, as the Talk page shows. For example, one editor insists that we go into great detail on the exact vowels in that word Yahweh - he'd write the entire article on that subject if he was allowed. Another feels that great slabs of Biblical quotation are the way to go. And so on. Maybe Dbachman just got too frustrated and blew a fuse. He has a pretty good record apart from this. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Milkin family reputation enhancement project

A sizable effort has been underway for some time to polish the reputation of Michael Milkin (billionaire and major financial crook of the 1980s) and some of his relatives.

Articles:

• Michael Milkin
• Lowell Milken
• Milken Family Foundation

Users: (all WP:SPA accounts which edit only Milkin-related articles.)

• Paragonzen (talk · contribs)
• SwimDude (talk · contribs)
• Skeen4772 (talk · contribs)
• 12.44.44.11 (talk · contribs) (RDNS to "execproinc.com", Milkin's private data center )
• Shsueh (talk · contribs) (Uploads flattering photographs of Milkins receiving awards, etc.)
• MrFactChecker (talk · contribs)

The articles are incredibly flattering, and read like press releases. Except for the parts about the criminal convictions, being kicked out of the securities industry, etc., which the flattery operation tries to minimize or remove. I've had some minor edit warring issues with some of the above, but didn't put the whole picture together until today. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an important issue to raise, but the matter should be brought to WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN instead of here. --Jayron32 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether this belongs here, at WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:SPI. It has aspects of all of the above. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent to Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Milken family reputation enhancement project. --John Nagle (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The National Archives

Could someone please delete the page The National Archives (currently a redirect) so that The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government) can be moved back there, in accordance with the result of the discussion at Talk:The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government)#Flurry_of_undiscussed_name_changes. TIA. --Harumphy (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You should tag it with {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to do it, but I don't have time to do it right this minute so will leave it for another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though I am not an administrator, I tagged it for speedy deletion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One wonders if selecting a single government's national archive as "The National Archives" is appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, that is why I got cold feet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue was discussed and resolved on the talk page for the article in question. Besides, it had been the name for a long time without any bother.--Harumphy (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be covered by WP:CONLIMITED, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly - but either way it needs to be discussed at Talk:The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government)#Flurry_of_undiscussed_name_changes, not here, otherwise there will be two separate discussions going on.--Harumphy (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One small problem: where's the content? All I see are redirects pointing at one another, where did the actual article go? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Right here, I believe. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still at The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government). --Harumphy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just figured that out. There's been so many moves it is a bit obscure. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was actually server lag, for a second there I couldn't find the content at either name, then it refreshed the page and it came back. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've now opened a requested move discussion on the talk page, due to my sharing several other people's concerns that the present organization of these pages is incorrect. Any comments are welcome. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

See Talk:Creativity Alliance#Formation - we've seen an account and an IP at least today blocked as socks, and while following this up I noted what might be considered a legal threat (I consider it such) at the bottom of this discussion. There's also been quite a bit of promotion by various accounts of this fringe racist movement. Again I'm off to be but I'll notify the editor of this discussion first. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is, but check and see if his gripes are valid. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The gripes seem to be internal factional disputes between various sub-splinter-groups of some racist pseudo-religious fringe formation, members of which have been creating a walled garden of articles about their "movement". Just block and ban any and all editors who edit these and are recognisably associated with their ideology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've indefed the two ringleaders, KarlKraft (talk · contribs) and Thoughtcrime69er (talk · contribs). This was going on for a long while, with multiple mutual BLP violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And KarlKraft was a puppet master. This walled garden is a problem. I've been putting the articles on my watch list but some should be merged. They are mainly being used for promotion. Yesterday saw a spate of adding links to other articles by a sock of KarlKraft. More eyes on them would be really useful. Thanks for the help. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want this guy indeffed (User:AP1929)

I'm sick and tired of User:AP1929. I've just noticed this. Do I have to take this kind of abuse? Frankly I'm furious! Every now and again I discover some ridiculous reply like this one one of my posts, a personal attack that's been left standing for months. How many does it take? If someone has any doubts, please note the account's history of personal attacks. --DIREKTOR 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit was four(!) months ago, and the guy hasn't edited in over a month. Grsz 11 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? That isn't even close to a serious personal attack and if you were that concerned about it, you should've noticed it a 4 months ago when it was posted. You're just now finding it and seeing that the user hasn't edited in a month...? Dusti 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do think the comment crosses the line into a personal attack, but it's a moot point. AP1929 has already been blocked twice since then for violations of WP:NPA, so we can't indef them for something that happened before those incidents. If it happens again, bring it here right away and folks will decide whether to block again and for how long. — Satori Son

I have notified the editor of this thread. Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So... its ok to call someone a "paid propagandist", or state I "embarrass someone intellectually", as long as they only notice it a few months later? What an interesting aspect of WP:NPA. If I call someone an SoB in September, they don't notice, and in November I get blocked 2 weeks for telling this person to go f*** themselves, the fact that I called someone an SoB in September is now suddenly a moot point. The courts should adopt this same principle.

The fact of the matter is that a personal attack is all the worse for not being noticed. This guy's trolling "disclaimer" concerning myself remained posted on the talkpage for months. I'm also not seeing the significance of his temporary absence from editing (following his 2 week block for breaching WP:NPA). Again, this user's behaviour towards other users is beyond personal attack: its political and moral slander. "Comment on content?". This last "discovery" should be taken in the context of the user's history (e.g. COMRADE DIRECTOR!). --DIREKTOR 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You've heard of the statue of limitation right? The fact that YOU didn't notice a comment about YOURSELF is the issue here. While it's an off color remark, you're bringing up a four month old diff and that individual hasn't edited in a month. What do you expect to be done? There's no recent editing activity and no sanctions against the user.I just noticed the block log If he comes back and start's another issue, the please, come back. Dusti 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of the statue of limitations - its closely defined in virtually all legal systems. Is there any objective criteria by which we can judge the comment to be dated? --DIREKTOR 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's objectively from before the last time he was blocked for personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff itself is stale. I'm surprised, however, that no one bothered mentioning WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. Considering that

• The user was topic banned for 6 months in 2008 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for, inter alia, disruptive POV-pushing on the very same article;
• Their first edit after their return from said topic ban is entitled "I'm Back - With Bones to Pick";
• They have been the subject of various ANI threads:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Offensive language and personal attacks by User:AP1929,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Trolling, and
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive653#User:AP1929 at it again;

• As a result of the two latter threads, they have been blocked twice for personal attacks;
• The username "AP1929" is an abbreviation of "Ante Pavelić 1929", "1929" being the year Ustaše was founded;
• Their recent edits in December 2010 do not reflect a substantial change in behavior from 2008, and there is no reason to expect such a change in the future; and
• The user edits only sporadically, making timed blocks and topic bans ineffective;

I am convinced that anything short of an indefinite block and topic ban will be ineffective in preventing the disruption caused by the user's repeated tendentious editing and personal attacks. Accordingly, I'm blocking AP1929 (talk · contribs) indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the usual protections accorded to AE blocks specified by this motion of the arbitration committee. In addition, under the same authority, AP1929 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed, as specified in WP:TBAN. The topic ban is to run concurrently with the indef block, and shall come into effect if the block is lifted for any reason. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy is an Ustaše-supporter (said so himself numerous times). The Ustaše are the Balkans equivalent of Nazis, different perhaps in that they were not quite as "gentle" as the latter (adding a bit of the old "Balkans touch" to Nazism). One of the most murderous genocidal military/political organizations of WWII, with some 400,000 victims to their name. Every now and then AP likes to post his pro-Ustaše tirades along with a few personal attacks/harassment etc. against me. --DIREKTOR 04:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call, TC. I read AP1929's latest contribution at Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Suggestions_.2F_Concerns. Besides being an Ustase apologia, it ends with "I would much rather prefer to discuss these issues with people who aren't paid to be here to push the Republic of Croatia's alleged anti-fascist political agenda; who have legitimate Western educations and actually know how to communicate in the English language. AP1929 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" and a later "... you have demonstrated nothing beyond what kids in grades 4 to 8 learned in SFRY. AP1929 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" The previous NPA blocks were apparently ineffective in changing this user's conduct. He can hardly write a post without an ad hominem. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. Call it an indef community ban, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards