Misplaced Pages

Whup-whup-whup-whup. Recognise that sound? It is indeed a boomerang on its way back to you. I did indeed accidentally template TT about something a while ago. I apologised, and it was a genuine slip of the mouse. It has happened exactly once in my 20-odd thousand edits.

I did not notify TT of this thread; Cerejota did. What is more, I spoke with TT prior to the thread being opened and, despite allegations of me having a hair trigger, you will note that I did not open this ANI nor did I immediately respond when it was opened. Please retract. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Having following the seemingly neverending dispute on the Yadav article (because it was automatically watchlisted as a result of some wikignoming), I have seen how this evolved, and as such I reluctantly support a topic ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given by Fowler&fowler«Talk».The three weeks ban expired on 24th and this proposal was made in 25th. Looks like a pre-planned and motivated proposal. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, a lot of the rest of us see something different; namely, "The three weeks ban expired on the 24th and the user immediately started the same type of disruption that got them blocked in the first place." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making fun of editors not voting your way is unbecoming of an administrator. You are a new administrator . It seems you need some mentorship for the role.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - MangoWong is there any valid reason why you have posted a notice about this ANI report at Talk:Yadav and Talk:Kurmi ? Perhaps of more relevance, why you have neglected to do the same at all the other articles in which Thisthat2011 has been involved? I do realise that the list could be lengthy but yours is a curious approach on both counts. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are about the two articles which have been mentioned here. The James Tod article has also been mentioned. However, I have not known TT2011 to have been there.-MangoWong 10:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You have an odd definition of "about" as there are quite a few others, eg: the original article (2008 Mumbai attacks) and Christian terrorism, the India project talk page, India ... do you want me to go on? Arguably, you should also consider Mathematics etc because those are referred to indirectly, as covered by the previous topic banning ANI report. Your definition appears to be somewhat skewed. Or is it something else? - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are the two articles on which I have known TT2011 and which have been mentioned. If you think it is relevant to put notices on other articles which have been mentioned, you can go ahead.-MangoWong 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite the same reason you originally gave. Since you have started the process, I suggest that you continue to post to the other articles or, alternatively, remove the ones that you have done so far. You have targeted two articles where it is probable that TT2011 will have support from newbie IPs etc, you worded the message in a poor manner (not making it clear that this discussion is about TT rather than the articles), and you appear to have selected only articles at which myself, Qwyrxian and MatthewVanitas have contributed. I find this odd and distinctly non-neutral, but the ball is in your court. I will not be removing them because they are your posts, but neither am I prepared to indulge in what might be construed as subtle canvassing by selectively posting elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that there may be something odd about those notices, I have removed them. I have not deleted your comments. You can delete them.-MangoWong 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid those, before I came to look at ANI, not knowing there was a reason behind them. In any event, the notices can stay, there's no real harm (I don't see this as any sort of WP:CANVAS violation0, and removing comments from talk pages tends to mess up the conversation, especially if others have responded. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not that the notices were there but that the placement was selective and somewhat misleading. A load of IPs coming here to comment on the articles in this thread seemed to be a possible outcome. OTOH, trawling through numerous article talk pages to insert notices, as it was suggested I do, is almost certain to lead to an accusation that I missed one somewhere. - there are lots, and where does one draw the line? Those articles are tangential to the purpose of this report. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my posts again.-MangoWong 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fowler&fowler«Talk».--Snowded 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request that, if possible, an uninvolved admin make a call as to whether or not there is consensus for the proposed topic ban and enforced mentorship; if so, we can continue on with the conversation below about finding a mentor. If not, I think we're definitely starting to shift the wrong way on our signal-noise balance, and the discussion should be closed. If any of the other editors who are trying to turn this into a fight against the god-like tyranny (I paraphrase from the closed thread near the bottom of the page) of myself , Sitush, and MatthewVanitas would like to continue the complaints against any one or all of us, I recommend a new discussion, or perhaps a different venue like WP:RFC/U. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

117.195

New section

The point I was trying to make was that some editors bring biases from their own personal situation or, from the community they belong to, in their editing preferences.

In my opinion, the varna situation became important again only with the rise of the Marathas and British colonialism. Otherwise, Indian castes were just tribes of different social standings. I compare Hyacinth to the Kurmi caste because both have the pretensions of being of higher social standing. The Kurmi started working on getting elevated to the Kshtriya status more than a century ago. By now their Kshtriya status should be acknowledged. One can write the history of that "struggle" in the article but there is no need to rub the "Shudra" status in. I applaud F&F for cleaning some of the caste articles to get rid of the "offensive" content. This is my last word on the Hyacinth analogy and I don't think this piece was off-topic or or irrelevant. Regards. 50.11.153.223 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to mentor?

Qwyrxian queried whether anyone might be willing to mentor Thisthat2011 per the proposal but it is lost in the noise above. So, anyone? Of good standing etc as per the proposal, of course. If not then this is likely to become a straightforward topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long thought I'd be well-suited to mentoring. What exactly is involved in mentoring? Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an essay at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. Qwyrxian has recently mentored someone and I am aware that Kansan is doing so, so they may be able to give you some background info. It has to be by mutual agreement, obviously. A specific mentor cannot be imposed on a contributor, and so if TT2011 does not "like" you then I guess it would not happen. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If one is offering to do mentoring, ones block log could also possibly become an issue of discussion.-MangoWong 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly true, MangoWong, although even for RfA I think that there is no requirement that a block log must be clean. I wonder if one day you may actually contribute something positive to a discussion? Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? It is one of several points which I have raised and you have chosen completely to ignore despite your general verbosity in this discussion. Every time and everywhere that you and I converse, I seem to find myself trying to move things forward and being faced by a constant negativity. It is dispiriting, especially since that negativity is often founded on misunderstanding and even when the misunderstanding is communally demonstrated to you there remains an almost complete failure by you to acknowledge it. User:MangoWong, including its history, perhaps would explain a lot to those willing to delve into it, as would recent removals from your talk page per WP:POLEMIC. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you three continue your irrational obsession for inserting S***** S***** S***** S***** into caste related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign to drive away Indian eds from India related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign of obtaining blocks/bans on Indian eds (so that you can have a free run on caste articles and keep inserting S***** S***** S***** S*****, by googling and by performing misrepresentations and OR and synthesis etc.), you are likely to continue to encounter negativity from me. In the previous ANI, you guys are the ones who said that I am unsuitable for explaining anything to anyone. Apparantly because I had a block record. You say that I misunderstand things. Actually, you are the one who misunderstands things. You have previously alleged that I do not understand what is weasel word and even went on to suggest that I may be stupid. But ask anyone, "Claim" is a weasel word. My understanding is not at fault. If you continue to argue even after the MOS has been shown to you, which lists "Claim" as one of the words to avoid, it is your understanding and attitude which should be questioned. If you guys insist that "citation needed" tags justify edit wars and that such tags are somehow unnecessary in the lead and the infobox, your understanding should be questioned. I think that both the lead and the infobox are covered by WP:V and WP:NOR as much as other parts of the article. I see no reason to relax core policy requirements of verifiability and NOR in the lead and the infobox.-MangoWong 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, MW was casting doubts on infobox/lede statements on caste articles by cn'ing them, though the content was explicitly expanded on and clearly cited in the pertinent sections of the article. Further, when an RS says "John Johnson claimed that he did XYZ", it is not "weaseling" to state "claim" in the article in that context, since we can't well say "did" when the RS cites only the individual/group's claims vice substantiating the fact. MW, TT, and crew have also wasted pages and pages of Talk literally over one word, "Shudra" (labouring mega-caste) no matter how nuanced or backed by RSs, while showing zero concern for WP's horrendous over-use of "Kshatriya" (warrior mega-caste) which is the tip-top favourite claim for those using WP as a soapbox to glorify their personal "ancient and honourable" caste and then defend the POV-pushing to the death. Another favourite technique of caste-glorifiers is to turn around and accuse the NPOV editors of perpetuating the caste system as evil Orientalist outsiders, despite the fact that it's fictional caste narratives and "rah-rah go team!" caste partisanship that serve to perpetuate caste discrimination. MW's allegations of anti-Indian bias are ridiculous wolf-crying, and insulting to the many Indian editors struggling to maintain NPOV on the highly emotional caste articles, including self-declared Indian editors who have worked in harmony with Sitush, Q, and myself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is a highly skewed interpretation of events. As usual. For example, folks may like to know that the trio could never provide a proper ref for the sentence in the infobox (the one which I had tagged). It has been deleted. It was in the Kurmi article infobox. We had discussed "Claim" being weasly or not at Talk:Yadav#Yadavas History. That sentence has also been removed. However, I now find that even after the MOS had been shown, and even after the "Claim" word was removed by agreement, another truckload of "Claim Claim Claim Claim" has now been added into the Yadav article. Is this some kind of a joke? Why must one go on explaining the same point repeatedly? Why can't you guys stick to a point once it has been accepted by you? And don't try to give the impression that the sources were also using the "Claim" word. None of the "sources" were using that word. Plus one of the sources turned out to be a non professor toilet designer. Presently too, I see tons of new poor sources and misrepresentations. And don't try to give the impression that I am here to push Kshatriya claims. In fact, I had "OK"ed your wish to take down rubbish Kshatriya claims at talk:Kurmi. I have known you guys at Yadav, Kurmi and James Tod. And all I could see was you guys trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you. Thanks.-MangoWong 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the spiel, MangoWong. Now, would you care to answer my query? - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In an above post, you have linked Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. Did you not read it? That page clearly says that it is uncivil to volunteer someone else's name for mentoring.-MangoWong 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. However, I did not ask you to volunteer someone. You talk with people and could discuss the matter then suggest someone here. It seems to me to be a better approach because time and again you have demonstrated a refusal to accept suggestions (of various types) put forward by others such as myself. I was giving you an opportunity. The nuances of the language seem to have got in the way again, sorry. Anyway, a couple of people have put their name forward below. Thoughts?- Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? You did ask me to volunteer someone's name. Don't be snide about it. And I am waiting for the discussion to progress before I could say anything more.-MangoWong 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
_Contribs 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. Please keep me informed on my talk page. — Kudu  16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The mentoring part is a little presumptive and premptive at the moment, it assumes that a mentor is needed, it would make someone assume that the user offering mentoring supports that mentoring is needed for the reportee. This discussion could go in any direction, Cerejota who made horrendously provocative remarks, or Quigley who attacked the reportee with such vigour that the NPA flag should have been up. Why are the three musketeers so desperate to get an editor out of the way, or would inquisitors be a better word, one of them has put it like my way or high way, is that how Misplaced Pages works? Or is it about consensus? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has recieved a warning for making personal attacks. There are only two names above, and against both this user is complaining against. An editor/admin perhaps thinks a complaint is a personal attack. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making a complaint against users is one thing, comparing them to inquisitors is another. Unless you have proof that they've been culling out heresy for the Roman Catholic Church, I don't think such a descriptor is accurate. It is not a complaint against an editor's behavior, it is a derogatory remark about an editor's personal behavior that lacks evidence. This is why I left that comment on your talk page. - SudoGhost 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh! I used it figuratively, is that also forbidden? lynching has been used above, we use impaling, I wasn't thinking of its literal meaning.117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Webster uses it in a secular (non-religious) sense too "He had to answer his inquisitors' questions or be thrown out of school." The simple English meaning of inquisitor is "a person who asks many difficult questions in a harsh or unkind way" no personal attack or Catholic or hersesy or culling involved here. Please withdraw your templates on this users talk page. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you made accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. That is, by definition, a personal attack. The template was simply a reminder to please back up what you say with evidence, you'll find your arguments much more effective that way. - SudoGhost 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do you wish I provide diffs? (First you said it was about Catholics culling something), what is your point? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The following comment has been made by an admin who is involved in this report on TT2011: "...Indian culture is, I think, not matching to Misplaced Pages culture (which is based primarily in Western academic culture)" , can this be explained? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is explained by carefully selecting your quote to leave out the context. It begins with "this is one of those awkward cases where..." That is very different from what you imply above which is that Q. is stating that Indian culture in general is not a match to WP culture. LadyofShalott 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor contrasted "traditional Indian culture" with "international academia", which, of course, included Indian academics who adopt international standards. The post you condemn was an attempt to recognise and acknowledge cultural differences while pointing out that international standards prevail here. This who discussion is becoming sidetracked by the constant attempts at obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back your statements? If not then you are violating TGP. The diff is given, where that particular quote and on the page the entire discussion can be followed. I am not implying anything, don't accuse me of anything, such as careful selection. Are anyone of you reliable sources on the relative merits of traditional Indian culture and Misplaced Pages culture of which one manifestation is the closure of a discussion which was not favouring a particular view? Anyways let Qw answer. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's preposterous to ask for a "reliable source" to interpret a Wikipedian's talk page comment. Paul B (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't preposterous, please see wp:TPG, talkpages are not blogs, whatever you say, you should be able to provide evidence. Please read policy.117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of policy, which you are misrepresenting as sophistically as you misepresented the very comment you quoted. I do not need a reliable source to comment on what someone said. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, I did not misrepresent the comment, Q's comment has been linked to, a diff has been provided. Please explain in simple language what other issues you have. Short sentences please if you can. I cannot understand you (my fault), and I do not want to jump to conclusions. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you blame Indian tradition for what one IP editor wrote. Very unfortunate. Why do you assume that the perceived faults are not just one person's but endemic to Indian culture? The least you could is say say sorry? On the other hand you seem to be taking some kind of high ground, broadcasting a lot of condescending and patronising. Looks like you owe a big apology. One that is heartfelt, and comes from an acceptance of wrong doing. Like a Zuggernaut said above, the closing admin should take a hard look at wp:COMPETENCE. 117.195.68.177 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize because you are correct that I do not know for certain that this problem is endemic to Indian culture. I know, from both personal experience and from reliable research (Ilona Leki comes to mind off the top of my head) that the perspective is common across other parts of Asia. Perhaps, though, the perspective is not common in South Asia/India. I have strong suspicions that it is common, because that IP editor is not the only one from India I've heard make claims that a specific historian or historical text is above criticism. This is basically no different than Evangelical Christians in the US using "But the Bible says X" as their one and only argument to support a particular point--it's fine within their community, but it doesn't work on Misplaced Pages. Again, I submit that my intent was to help improve the situation by showing that sometimes problems occur not because one party is behaving badly, but simply because the two parties are behaving differently, and the other side looks completely wrong due to cultural issues. Too often Misplaced Pages editors who come from the U.S. and Europe fail to understand that a lot of our rules (the ones I notice most often are related to verifiability and copyright/plagiarism) literally make no sense in some other cultures, and so we have no right to get all angry because the person breaking policy "should have known better". We have the right to make people follow our policies or force them to stop editing, but we have to be aware that the failure to follow policy is often not due to malice, but due to different cultural paradigms. My goal in the comment was to get the IP editor to understand that xyr perspective on James Tod is not acceptable here even though it may be acceptable in xyr home community, and to indirectly get other editors to see that it's a more complex difference we're facing here than just "Obey policies or get blocked." Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(There was an edit conflict, but I am putting this anyways)Does familarity ( I am familiar with from interacting closely with other Asian cultures as an ESL teacher.) make Qwyrxian a reliable source on Indian cultural traits. The whole concept of cultural traits is dubious and racist imo. Each individual is unique imo. I am sorry Q, you are displaying extreme cognitive bias. As an admin you should be looking at evidence, and not work off your experiences off-wiki and the assumptions gathered there from, these short cuts you take hurts editors. Please take each case on its merits, based on diffs.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the same thing: You say some Misplaced Pages policies are hard with some cultures. An apology that does not come from an understanding of the wrong doing is no apology. You can say user:X shows he has not understood wp:V, you can say users x, y , z , a, b, c have not understood wp:V, you cannot extrapolate, that is taking a short cut, that makes one's judgement wrong.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The more that people contribute to ANI reports while logged out (whether they by accident or otherwise), the more I start to wonder whether this entire noticeboard has a useful future. Sure, stylistic evidence often gives the game away but it is morally wrong. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This behavior does not seem to be common practice across this noticeboard. I think there are grounds for a sockpuppet investigation, as the user who's hiding behind the IPs has been acting very abusively throughout this discussion: evading scrutiny, personally attacking other users, and starting many off-topic conversations. If the user has genuinely made a mistake (although one edit summary contradicts that), then he should have his contributions correctly attributed to his user account and the IP addresses oversighted if necessary. Otherwise, "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles." Quigley (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested and able to contribute, I've filed for a sockpuppet investigation into the funny business in this thread. Quigley (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It'sAlwaysLupus

Recently this user changed "Disco-pop" to "Nu-disco" on the Moves Like Jagger article. He used no reliable sources, and he used WP:OR has an explanation. I reverted it. There was no edit war or anything, however I checked his contributions and noticed there were a TON of edits where he had gone into articles and changed Disco to Nu-disco, or British disco, etc, (primarily in the external links section) without any reliable sources. I find this disruptive and I think he needs to go and revert all of his edits, because he used no sources and when I questioned him he used WP:OR. I would have reverted the edits myself but there was A TON. Nicholas (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Before anyone asks, Nicholas already notified IAL.)

I don't see a problem here besides your own issues with the other users. Ironically enough the same user who is accusing the other users of OR pushing and generally disruptive behavior is doing the same things. But I'm no judge here, though. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy and personal attacks such as this one are not tolerated around here. Case closed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this editor, after this exchange at WQA. I found the exchange somewhat ironic, considering that IAL was very sarcastic and engaged in a borderline personal attack (calling an editor "arrogant"); keep in mind this was at WQA, where IAL was the one creating the request. In addition, IAL seemed very quick to assume the worst from the other editor, taking comments out of context, which is again ironic since the request was complaining about a lack of good faith from the other editor. To their credit, I was treated courteously in the WQA discussion, so I have not been the recipient of this behavior myself. Looking at the history of IAL's user talk page, I see the removal of legitimate notices (AfD nominations, 3RR warnings, etc.) with edit summaries like:

• "i replied on your talk page, i ain't need crap on MAH talk page du"
• "as a joke funny, but i don't want these pranks on my talk page, cats, archiving"
• "your trolling attacks are not welcome, be aware that I'm gonna report you to the Jimbo Wales"
• "-stalking and trolling comment"
• "just getting rid of the garbage"
• "flush"

Needless to say, I don't have a great deal of confidence that this editor is interested in collaborating with other editors. -- Atama頭 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, you would be suprised how friendly and "soft" I can be! ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say, I didn't even know about this, I wondered why is talk page was blank. Nicholas (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because all of that is old and when someone gives me a warning, I actually take notes and learn from it. You, however, delete the warnings without even acknowledging them and give a sarcastic remark to the editer, and you don't learn from it, you do it again. Nicholas (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say that an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page per WP:BLANKING; the removal is an implicit acknowledgement of the warnings. What aren't allowed, even on an editor's own user talk page, are false accusations of bad behavior. And IAL, I'm guessing that from your user name you're a fan of House (so am I), but you've been acting a bit too much like the good doctor in your communication with others. ;) -- Atama頭 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well you know the rules. Your user talk page is your "castle", but apparently someone didn't get the rules. Haha... why, thank you but you know it's nothing personal. :) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: Is request apparently made by a 14-year-old person on the Administrator' noticeboard still considered reliable? I mean Misplaced Pages is not a playground, you have to accept as a Wikipedian (or as a Bureaucrat, it doesn't matter) the laws of Misplaced Pages and you simply cannot draw conclusions and revert other users' edits "just because you personally don't like it (topic, genre, etc)" and/or suffering from the anger management issues? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We judge people on their actions, not their age. I wouldn't doubt that we've had admins younger than that. Your "playground" comments are out of line, and you're skimming close to personal attacks again. Do you think it's helpful to go back to last year to dig up dirt on the reporting editor? How about this: knock it off, work on your own poor treatment of other editors, and stop treating people with condescension. And before you ask, I'm in my 30s. -- Atama頭 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course we do. We would accept every user who is contributing to this great project even if he/she is 3 year old. However, if you act in "accordance" to your age, just like this, you should seriously reconsider if you really belong here. Don't you think? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really old. Do I act that way now? And I didn't remove the genres because I "personally don't like it", I removed them because they were not properly sourced. I reported you here because I think you need to go back and revert all of those edits you made.

And about the anger management thing, EVERYBODY in this world gets angry. It's a common emotion. So what I got angry and out of control? I'm only human like everyone else here. And to use that against me on Misplaced Pages? I can't. Nicholas (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not understand Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages principles in general. If you let your emotions influence your editing process then you are basically disrupting this whole project. If this is "old", then following problems with you are pretty ancient, indeed; Nicky Nicky, why are you using the same excuses? Avoid that WP:OTHERCRAP attitude already, it's not an answer nor argument. Use your wasted time to do something more productive instead, like creating a new article. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are old. And why are you going off topic? This section is about YOU, not me. Quit holding old edits against me. This section is about YOU. Take notes to the things that Atama said. You clearly don't want to work this out, instead you go digging through my old edits and givng excuses of why I shouldn't be here.

Also, take a look in the mirror before you go through my history telling me I don't belong here or whatever.

If you are just gonna keep replying about me, then I'm not gonna reply back, because it's obvious, like Atama said above, you have no interest whatsoever in working with others on here. Nicholas (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You should put your angst-ridden energy to something more productive, like for example creating a new article for Misplaced Pages. Seriously, kid, this is going nowhere. Maybe you should just take Wikibreak for your own good – I'm telling you this as your friend. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus, you were already advised by Atama once to refrain from further condescension towards other editors; this is a final warning. Continuing use of terms like "kid", "Nicky Nicky", "angst-ridden energy", will result in a block, as will any further comments that are canonical examples of condescending terms of address: "for your own good", "I'm telling you this as your friend"—seriously? Attempting to goad another editor into making intemperate comments in response to your own faux-friendly advice is not a valid dispute resolution strategy. I hope and expect that Nickyp88 will stick with the course of action he has already outlined above—that is, that he will not respond to further inappropriate attacks from you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're far more patient than I would have been based on the brutal and intentional WP:NPA's above. Of course, now that he's "promised" below, we can block for sarcasm on-sight, correct? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I want you to know that this won't happen again. I promise. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or involved in this at all, but I just have to check: Other people are noticing how ludicrously uncivil and obnoxious IAL is being, right? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I was going to remain silent, but after reviewing IAL's arrogant commentary, along with unambiguous genre-warring, I have serious doubts regarding IAL's ability to edit in a collegial environment. Calling another editor's age into the equation only reinforces those doubts, and brings IAL into the arena of Wikibullying. While there may be no actual edit war ongoing here, WP:ATAEW would be good review material for IAL, especially the sections on WP:MYWAY and WP:MOREX. Given that IAL has already received warnings from admins, my recommendation would be for IAL to take a Wikibreak, before one is forced on him. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice, I feel like a real human now. Human who is suitable for this highly well-mannered collegial environment. Yes, this all was highly unprofessional of me. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously dude, take a WikiBreak. You're not doing yourself any favours here. Step back, take a break, maybe work on some template requests, but you are not making any friends and not looking like a productive member of the community here. VanIsaac_WS 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern I really appreciate it. Also don't call me a "dude" since it *could* be technically incorrect. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's enough. In addition to the sarcasm laid on with a trowel here, ItsAlwaysLupus' first edit after his last comment to this thread here was to go back to reverting edits by Nickyp88 (Nicholas)—the edit warring that led to the discussion here in the first place. In addition to reverting to his preferred genre description for the artist Kylie Minogue ("nu-disco" versus "disco") – a categorization which neither editor has gone out of their way to source, making IAL's allegation of 'original research' ring hollow – his revert also changed two correctly-aimed wikilinks to instead point to redirects for no apparent reason. I have blocked IAL for 24 hours for personal attacks and generally combative editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fellow admin chiming in to support block. ItsAlwaysLupus's behaviour has been unpleasant, condescending and unproductive. Paradoxically, given IAL's issues with Nicholas's age, it is the latter who has been behaving in a more mature fashion! Kim Dent-Brown 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be getting it. He's once again called Nickyp88 "the kid" on his talk page () and followed up with an accusation (presumably aimed at me) of libel: . Against my better judgement, I have not withdrawn his talk page editing privileges or indefinitely blocked him for legal threats, but I have cautioned him against further policy violations. If he makes it to the end of his current block, he's going to be on a very short leash. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Ducky socking editing disruptively

Ieodoiskorean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a rather unconvincing bid to add "Russia" to list of countries where Korean is spoken. It's neither an official language, nor spoken by any significant percentage of the population. He basically immediately stopped editing after that. Today I noticed Travelguidewi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) show up and re-add russia to the list, with obviously and intentionally misleading editing summaries., I'm not sure what the obsession is. But I suspect that a CU would give us rather obvious results, and this kind of intentionally disruptive editing just isn't helpful in the slightest.--Crossmr (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin observation I haven't looked at all his edits, but that one is fairly reasonable, with or without WP:RS "The Association of Koreans of Russia hopes to resettle more than 150,000 Koreans in Primorskiy Kray by 1998.12 This plan ... the population of Koreans in Primorskiy Kray with the goal of setting up an autonomous Korean autonomous zone." It's a sore point with Koreans in Russia that Stalin resettled them to muslim Central Asia and denied them an autonomous zone where they were, happily nestled next to their Korean speaking relatives in Yanbian and the Rajin area. How many of them preserved the language I can't say, but I don't think a decision by Stalin is a good reason for not listing Korean as an language spoken in the CIS, since it is, here and there. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (what is Fairly Ducky?)

150,000 people out of Russia's population is not significant really. We don't list countries there unless the language is official or significant. Otherwise, we might as well list most countries in the world as almost every country in the world has some Koreans living in it. There has to be a threshold for inclusion in that list and 0.07% is unlikely to be it. Fairly Ducky refers to WP:DUCK, it appears to be fairly obvious that Travelguidewi is ieodiskorean. As he's a brand new account and his first edits were to that dispute and he edited it in a misleading and disruptive manner.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd Non-admin observation Crossmr Thanks for the explanation of what Duck means, I suppose that should have been obvious. Well, on the assumption that sockpuppetry is innocent until proven guilty I have notified Ieodoiskorean, as you had already notified Travelguidewi. But I can't say I think it's spectacularly significant that two Korean editors would both want Korean included as one of the languages of the CIS. (Though something totally unrelated, is whether the user name "Socotra Rock is Korean" is appropriate as a Misplaced Pages user name given that China also claims the rock?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not always the assumption, it is why we have WP:DUCK and in fact Check users will refuse to run checks in obvious cases. The behaviour itself is enough proof. It would be much less clear if Travelguidewi was an established account, but their first edits to that make it very obvious, not to mention they intentionally used false edit summaries to hide what they were doing.--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer WP:DUCK situation. The edit summaries have the same weird style to them, and the editor is trying to push the same changes. I've blocked the new account as a sockpuppet and warned Ieodoiskorean. -- Atama頭 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently disruptive socking is going to become a thing for him. Another misleading (empty) edit summary marked as minor by Coldorangeplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We may need a CU to get the IP address and block that.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest one blocked also, and I blocked the master since this last sock was created after a warning. -- Atama頭 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment, Crossmr, okay I to have admit you were right - in this case presumption of innocence wasn't deserved; now very clearly sockpuppetry. Though ironically if the puppeteer had only spent 10 min researching he/she could have easily found a suitable WP:RS to support the edit he/she wanted to make.... Go figure. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen an RS that Korea is spoken in Russia, that's not the contention. The contention is whether or not Korean is spoken in Russia to a degree enough to warrant its inclusion in the infobox. % wise, I don't think it's there, and I haven't seen any RS that would indicate that it's an official language anywhere in Russia. Heck there are more Koreans in Canada, and with a lot of them being recent immigrants and students, they mostly speak Korean, and Canada is a much smaller country.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Crossmr, have the good grace to be right on the sockpuppet and drop the language issue. The difference is Koreans aren't native to Newfoundland and weren't forcibly dispersed to Calgary and Winnepeg by Giscard d'Estaing. Objectively there are good RS for noting Korean as a significant language in Coastal Eastern Siberia during the pre-Stalin period. However, since this sockpuppet is behaving like this I for one am certainly not going to give him/her the satisfaction of making his/her edit. Admins should come down on this IP like a ton of bricks In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hanjinprotest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it continues, I'd suggest a page protection for the time being as well--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. And now the sockpuppet is admitting to being a sockpuppet and swearing to continue creating accounts. Due to the persistence of this person I'm going to semi-protect that article for a week. If after the semi-protection expires, the editor returns again with another account, I'll semi-protect again for longer, and keep doing that until they give up. -- Atama頭 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2  Possible socks worth keeping an eye on: Poemshappygreat (talk · contribs), Dosamasala (talk · contribs) (note the edit summaries). Unfortunately, they are editing on what seems to be very broad ranges so IPBlock is not an option. -- Luk 16:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are all the accounts on a very wide range, or is it just including these two that make it a wide range? But it does seem both of those counts are probably related. These accounts were created before he tried to disrupt the Korean language article though, which tells me he may have already been blocked for something. Most people don't start socking until they run into trouble--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Checkuser so I have no idea, I've been blocking on clear behavioral evidence. I will point out that Ieodoiskorean wasn't blocked when Travelguidewi began editing the article. One of the many reasons for creating a sockpuppet is to create the illusion of support, for example, if you're trying to insert something into an article and get reverted, you can create a second account to do it, and now it looks like consensus favors inclusion. It can also be done to get around 3RR, but in this case with edits being days apart I don't think that was the motive. I really don't know what the deal is. It might be worth actually creating a report at WP:SPI so that other sleepers from this editor can be found. All of the accounts have edited recently so there should be plenty of info for Checkusers to compare. -- Atama頭 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a case already open, I added to it: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ieodoiskorean--Crossmr (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Other socks have been blocked now, and apparently an IP address (they didn't say which). There was no comment on whether or not these all fell into a usable range or not.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my sentence was not clear. The 2 socks matched closely some that were already blocked, but didn't edit enough to decide whether it was mere chance or the same person. The dynamic IP range where everybody is located cannot (IMO) be blocked easily. -- Luk 06:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that's too bad. He seems to have cooled off a little. We'll see if a week or two later he's done or if he wants to start back up again.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 - Harassment and persistent WP:TPO vio

Greetings all - this was to start out as a simple WP:TPO issue, but has now blossomed into WP:HARASSMENT and I am afraid I am going to need some intervention here. The first three (TPO1 TPO2 TPO3) "appeared" innocent enough, and the user was advised of WP:TPO here. He then removed my entries on another users talk page TPO4 and TPO5, the 2nd of which was restored by another editor here. He then proceeded to insert his opinions in a discussion on my talk page as a 3rd party, was told to stop, but he persisted. I removed his last comment, which he restored (TPO6). He also continued to ignore my request for him to stop posting to my talk page. Once I removed those (1 2), he still kept posting. I then removed that, which he of course reverted again (TPO7). I am sure that by the time I am done submitting this there will be more to add. As the bulk of this is happening on my own talk page, this has clearly become a harassment issue. Why he took it upon himself to insert his comments as a 3rd party to 2 discussions on it is not known - however it is also completely irrelevant. The scope of this complaint is the TPO vios and their evolution into harassment. My talk page is not the place for him to violate TPO just to try and make a WP:POINT. I look forward to this rampant behaviour of his to stop, and quickly cease the endless violations of WP:TPO. Thanks for your time. Srobak (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does appear both of you are in the wrong here. His edits at the IP's talk page are not TPO violations; your edits at the IP's talk page are TPO violations, however. LikeLakers2 was warned not to engage again at the help desk. He has not edited since. Let's hope he sees that notice and does disengage. You, too, need to disengage from the situation. You both need to stop running around with Twinkle, reverting each other as "vandalism," giving each other warnings, and threatening to go to AIV. either way (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand I am not arguing with you on your points - but I want to clarify that 5 of his 7 TPOs were on my talk page, and he was told to stop engaging long before the helpdesk notif. Your claim of my having violated TPO is under dispute (dynamic anonips having "owners") and will be RFC'ed shortly - and is outside the scope of this ANI request. Even if you remove those, we still have 5x TPO vios that stand on their own and the harassment issue. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that I shouldn't have done that now, I am somewhat scared to even edit Misplaced Pages, let alone reply to this. This is mainly due to the response I got at the Help desk after simply asking for advice.

I was going to put a way longer post, but after seeing what Either way said, I am not sure I want to do so, as I don't want to cause more conflict. I can, however, post my original post text if requested. As I said, I just don't want to cause more of a conflict by doing so here, really. Sorry about the misunderstanding, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, I found your personal attacks warning to be completely inappropriate. There is not a single personal attack in this edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't think an anonuser combing through my edits and contacting users who I have warned in the past and lobbying them to lodge complaints against me to be the very epitome of a personal attack? That's unfortunate and I disagree with you - but I will respect your opinion. Srobak (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are in the fault here. You clearly instigated this problem by violating WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC. The only messages that an IP cannot remove from their own talk page are messages that it is a shared IP. This entire problem would have been avoided if you had a correct interpretation of WP:Blanking. One final point, I think both users should be trouted for edit warring over an IP's warning. When I was a child, and I would fight with my sister, my mom would always remind one of us to "be the bigger person" and stop. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would accept all trouts, hence the {{troutme}} template on my userpage. (well, on my header templates page, but you get the idea) Also, assuming you meant to put "WP:Blanking" as the link instead of "WP:Blankingn", I have fixed your link for you, Ryan Vesey. (Feel free to put it back if you intended to have the n at the end) LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, and was actually making it myself when we edit conflicted. Considering the current discussion, I don't think it was the best move you could've made though Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a warning on LikeLakers2's talk page for his behavior at the talk page of Srobak. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have escalated to this point had User:Srobak just got the point about anon IPs from the beginning and not caused this entire issue.--v/r - TP 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A point which I believe to be up to interpretation and debate and will be bringing to the foreground with an RFC in very short order, once I get all the T's dotted and the I's crossed. The non-removal of anonblock notices sets a great precedent to get the rest of this situation resolved. However - again... that is not the scope of this ANI. I already said above to nix the 2 TPO's on the other users page and to focus on the 5 on mine - which stand on their own as WP:TPO vios. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is how it got started. 76.190.196.103 makes a perhaps misguided but good faith edit to Kenosha Maroons. Srobak "neutrally" reverts it but then decides it's "vandalism" and leaves a 76.190.196.103 a "final warning". Srobak, please answer honestly. Was your decision to use the "vandalism warning" tag based on you seeing all those other warnings on his talk page? Would you have warned me if I had made that edit? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact - yes, that is exactly why it got the warning it did. The IP has a long, demonstrated history of vandalism edits, as well as warns and blocks to go with it, and should have been blocked from editing with unregistered accounts ages ago. No, I would not have issued you a lv-4im had you done the same edit... but likely lv-1 noting non-constructive/not-relevant. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're demonstrating a startling lack of understanding of what vandalism is and is not. Giving a final warning for such an obviously good-faith edit is simply egregious. Even a level 1 warning would have been inappropriate. Note that the use of the term "unconstructive" in the warning template is to prevent biting the newcomers, not to justify its use in every situation where an imperfect edit has been made. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an imperfect edit - but clearly WP:COMMENTARY and an WP:OPINION piece. Srobak (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have calmed down a lot since this morning. I guess coding templates, like I did here, is probably what I should do from now on when I get mad/scared/etc. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again... just happened to notice this one from late yesterday where he replaced a page owners content with his own, and went to so far as to indicate in his edit summary that the page owner cannot remove other people's comments from their own talk page: TPO8. C'mon now - that's over the top. He has also recently edited actual user pages - not just the talk pages: (UP1), (UP2). Srobak (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have extended the warning on his talk page. I suggest that you both disengage and allow the issue to die. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would... but it continues still... TPO9, UP3, TPO10 Srobak (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have commented on it here, but my phone's Opera Mini browser decided to put the char limit at 12060 when that was the ammount of chars already on this section. Anyway, see here for my response. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear on my first three notices to him to stop posting on my page... *SIGH* <---- What does it take? Srobak (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you stopped posting warning templates on his talkpage . Seriously, it seems to me you are just trying to make things worse by doing that. Have you truly learned nothing from this ANI discussion? Yoenit (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at timestamps and think about the order in which things occurred, and also understand the root problem here. Srobak (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems: one is Likelakers2 editing stuff he should not edit such as Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 13, but the second one is you reverting his edits "as vandalism" and slapping warning templates on his talkpage as I linked above. Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in the links you provided - I reverted his 3rd party edit to another users talk page, and issued him 2 separate TPO warnings, as they occurred long after being warned TWICE by Ryan Vesey to stop. Those are the incidents I reported above (TPO9 and TPO10). Why is this not making sense to you? He has also been told and warned escalatingly to stop posting to my talk page, yet he continues to ignore it and keeps on posting. Those are the only things that have been reverted as vandalism - because it is. Srobak (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Since this is getting nowhere and is just a collection of tattling on each other and bad feelings, can we come up with a solution? I think we need an interaction ban between Srobak and LikeLakers2. They should not comment on each other's actions, revert each other's edits, or edit each other's talk pages. Thoughts? either way (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will voluntarily stop interaction with him on my own - so no need to worry there. Sure hope you guys consider banning his constant TPO's of other users however... that is the root of the issue here, and is what needs a solution. If steps aren't taken to curb this kind of stuff, then why even bother having WP:TPO and WP:ANI? Srobak (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And there you go...you said "I'll stop" and then the first thing you do is comment on his actions. Drop it. Desist from commenting on, looking at, or thinking about the actions of LikeLakers2. Your actions are "the root of the issue" here as well. And they, too, need a solution, which is the interaction ban. This wouldn't be the "big deal" it was if it wasn't for your behaviour as well (labeling his reverts as vandalism...flouting policies inappropriately...hostile engagement, etc.). either way (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... the TPO vios stand on their own and have nothing to do with my behaviour. It appears that some folks operating in an administrative capacity is about as useless as even having policies like TPO. Why frakkin bother with either one? What a waste of keystrokes. I come here for resolution and instead get ignorance. Have fun y'all. Srobak (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does that. I will also voluntarily stop interacting with him. I assume removing his comments from my talk page would be the only exception to the cannot revert each others edits, though? And Srobak, I was trying to be nice with that ANI response on your talk page. First off, it is NOT vandalism in any sense of the word. Second, your custom message near the end seemed to have a rude tone of voice. Please stop, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this interaction ban, which both users agreed to but which was not formally enacted here, is being followed: . I would suggest someone uninvolved enact the ban and make clear to the users that agreeing to leave each other alone means leaving each other alone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you likely meant this diff. Srobak (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant the diff I used. While it's obvious that LikeLakers is violating the interaction ban there, it seems fairly likely to me that you came to that MfD the same way I did - through a posting on LL2's talk page. If that's the case, and I'll readily acknowledge that it's possible that it's not, it's a violation of the spirit of the interaction ban, as you were goading him by appearing where you knew he was and !voting in opposition to him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... His presence is inconsequential - and interactions on my part with him has been nil since I said it would be. I'd have opined the same if I had just come across it any other way. I think my position on principles is clear enough for you to be able to come to that conclusion on your own... but I guess some folks are just "glass half empty" kinda people. Srobak (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, especially if you take a look at the subsection directly below this. It's clear that the voluntary agreement to follow the guidelines did not stick. So, we need to either agree with a consensus to establish and enforce a ban or find another method for keeping these two apart. either way (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Or you need to actually read the section below, entitled "On second thought...". Let's try and keep up, kids. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys do realize that an interaction/non-communication ban does not actually fix The Problem, right? In fact - it will do nothing to address or resolve it. What is this incessant need to shift focus? As I stated below - if someone has a problem with me, then bring it up in a new section and we will hash that out accordingly, but please do not allow it to shift focus and result in derelict actions. One problem at a time here, guys. Srobak (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that you are a part of the problem here. We're not attempting to shift focus as you say, we're attempting to solve some of the problem. One of the major problems here is your interactions with each other. either way (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention... you see all of those instances listed in the section below? Not a SINGLE ONE of them are interactions on my part or the results of interactions on my part, and each of them stand completely on their own - most of them are on other users pages in fact. Take a very close look at each of them before lumping it all together, please. I'm sorry that you don't see it - but you are in fact shifting the focus, while occluding the actual problem. Srobak (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

With the ban in place a problem of user interaction will have been addressed (though the result will be no different than it is now, as I have not interacted with him since I said I wouldn't). That is the "some" of which you speak. However - the original, core, root, whatever you want to call it - problem of TPO and UP edits will still indeed exist, and likely continue un-checked... until some other user happens across it and tries to bring it to your attention here. If you folks haven't changed your perspective on dealing with issues at their core by then - then I deeply pity that poor, unfortunate user. Seems as though people are better off just keeping their mouths shut and letting the residents just run loose in the asylum. Heaven forbid some sentiment of order is actually desired and expected to be kept. How utterly stupid of me to try and bring this clearly problematic issue to light. Srobak (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey either way, how are you going to torch me for trying to bring a habitual WP:TPO user to your attention, and then pull a move like this for someone who conducted a single, minor edit? Can we say "hypocrisy" and "irony"? I knew that we could. You are making my case for me - you know that, right? Let's try a new word though... "consistency". Might need some work, but I'm positive you can attain it. Not to mention the fact that you only came across that user and his templates which you then speedy'ed because of my initial TPO complaint here. You're welcome. Srobak (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On Second Thought...

This has not been brought to any rational resolution, and will need to be further addressed without again trying to shift the focus of the situation. Placating to, allowing or endorsing rampant WP:TPO vios is not something that an admin should be proud of and any admin that does probably needs to hang it up for a while. If someone has a problem with me, then bring it up as a separate issue and we can duke that out there.

The scope of this issue is 8 (eight) of 10 WP:TPO violations - each of which stand on their own, and have nothing to do with my warns or edits;

TPO1x, TPO2x, TPO3x, TPO4x, TPO5x, TPO6x, TPO7x, TPO8x

He was warned by Ryan Vesey after TPO5x to stop yet continued, and was warned a second time and continued.

In addition, there are these userpage edits which do not fall within the scope of WP:UP#OWN;

UP1, UP2, UP3.

Subsequent userpage edits out of scope; UP4,

This needs to be addressed at face value. Hopefully faith can be restored _{though I have my doubts.} Srobak (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You never looked at the edit I did after "UP4". See here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal interaction ban proposal

It has become clear that after four days of constant finger pointing and bickering between User:LikeLakers2 and User:Srobak, the community is beginning to get fed up with this. This continuous discussion, which has had time to be resolved cleanly, is continuing with neither side seeming to compromise. Therefore, on suggestion from User:Either way and User:Fluffernutter, I am proposing a formal community-sanctioned interaction ban between both editors, who if either violate it, can be blocked. This should restore order to things and end this waste of the community's time. Mitch32 03:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that the expectation of addressing blatant, continuous WP:TPO violations, past being warned TWICE by an admin not to - are considered a "waste of time". If this is how some members feel about addressing problems, then perhaps some administrative review is in order as well. The lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Srobak (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. PLEASE. It's clear the users can't disengage on their own power. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support (obviously). either way (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As I have not interacted with him since I said I wouldn't anyhow - it does no harm and I have nothing to lose by supporting a ban which I have self-imposed in the first place. However - the expectation of addressing the actual problem is still present, doesn't go away just because people stick fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-la", and will be pursued through administrative review if necessary. Srobak (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The ban above will not resolve the problem in the section above. Remember that. Act accordingly. (chya right)Srobak (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama insisting on less reliable sources

Reikasama (talk · contribs) has refused to get the point that Anime News Network's encyclopedia (WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), MyAnimeList (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), and the Japanese Misplaced Pages (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), are not reliable sources because their contents is user generated and has demanded that Kodomo no Jikan‎ be unprotected so that s/he may "correct" the article despite the fact that the article was semi-protected in the first place because s/he was edit warring as an IP. Reikasama has been pointed to WP:V and WP:A&M/ORS multiple times during the course of the discussion but still insists that s/he is right and that the three are reliable source. S/he has also stated that Lolicon#Genre characteristics is completely wrong and that the sources there, which include several academic papers and books, are made up and even threatened to extend the edit war to this article as well. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is absolutely false, i've 100% reliable source as example like ANN, the best, proefessional and large community in the web. Also i have MAL, another big community and the same japanese wiki, where the word is created in origin and here is stated the correct definition by japanese people. The lolicon word in origin is not a genre but define a behaviour like hentai and ecchi. I provide 3 sources while the moderator for a reason i don't get insist to use the wrong terminology and linking me a blog with personal opinion made by 1 guy. I don't get also what's the issue to use another word instead of the improper use of this one. . Also the improper use of this word is often use as internet meme in the west for practical use not because is correct like in original. If Farix deny this, it consider pratically japanese people where the word is originated liars. Like the pizza invented in italy is a lie. You also can ask directly to a wiki japanese administrator the meaning of this word in Japan. Reikasama (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard. But Reikasama has now attempted to inserting their personal POV into Lolicon using unreliable sources such as the Japanese Misplaced Pages and ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source i provided are 100% reliable and accurate more than the source you post (1 person opinion), i provide links in the matter as proof and fix errors. Is not my POV, is the point of the enire anime and manga community as a fact. ANN is a professional website, one of the main hub of the www anime fandom. Fix errors is helping wikipedia for the best not for the bad. I gain nothing in this, i just don't like disinformation and false statements so i try my best to help with reliable and correct sources. also a classification in the west don't mean is the correct explanation of terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikasama (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should find some sources that are deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages standards, then. These are clearly not acceptable as the links provided by TheFarix shows. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you blind? I provide you link, every link i provide you told me that aren't reliable source. This is not a matter of cources, you attack me personally abusing your authority only because you don't accept my sources.Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User generated content will never be considered "100% reliable and accurate", and continuing to claim that they are "100% reliable and accurate" will not make them reliable under Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are, ANN is linked in wikipedia in every manga and anime post, if isn't a reliable source why is linked everywhere? simply because it is and is reliable without any doubts. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear for all to see that Reikasama is engaged in tendentious editing and disruptive behavior by repeatedly insisting that unreliable sources are reliable, even after being pointed out to policies that state that those sources are unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 11:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I provide 100% reliable sources, on the other hand you abuse your privileges to lock topics at random refuse to accept my sources as a proof. ANN is one of the most reliable sources on the www about anime and manga. Linked everywhere in the wiki too as database. You refuse the avidence and attack me personally. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a correction needs to be made above. Anything can be a reliable source for some purpose. However, it depends on how the item is used. It bothers me when people use a blanket statement like "such and such CAN'T be a reliable source", because it all depends on the context. It is equally bad when people say certain things are ALWAYS reliable sources. For example, saying anything put out by the New York Times is automatically valid. It simply isn't true. Our guideline on Reliable Sources needs to be applied as written, not as we would like it to be.

Back on topic, Farix, I don't know a thing about MyAnimeList, but without having seen it, I would tend to agree with you. My question to both you and Reikasama is, what sources are available for general research on Anime? If the statements made in these articles are reasonable, just leave the sourcing off for a bit until you find something in a source you both agree is fine. WP:V does support this type of process.

Reikasama, maybe if you work slowly for a bit while you learn the process for Misplaced Pages, it would help you succeed. You appear to be a very new editor, and sometimes new editors and old editors take time to learn to work well together. See if you can use different sources that everyone agrees are acceptable, and maybe over time, you will have a different view of the processes at Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way? ANN is the most know website on the net, the ANN database is linked for every anime and manga posted here in wikipedia. If you ask people into anime and manga what ANN is, 99% know the website as valid source. Moreover i linked another pretty popular website called MAL. They are the biggest. Biggest mean 90% of the community agree with these tags. More sources i provide and less accurate they will be because they fall into the small communities and personal opinions. I don't get also where is the issue to use the properly usage of a terminology. If you ask to a japanese administrator here on wiki i'm 100% sure that he give you the same explanation as me, as ANN, as MAL. Since the word was created in Japan, deny the original meaning mean that japanese are liars and don't know thir own alphabet. In the end i only want to edit tags and adding the ones used on ANN and MAL, removing the lolicon one because is inappropriate and incorrect. But i can't because this guy continue to block the webpages and delete my sources and post, he don't listen, he is selfish and do what he want. That's all. Reikasama (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's look at the sources mentioned.

• ANN - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com
• MAL - http://myanimelist.net

At first glance, I would probably say ANN is a news source. Personally, I have no idea if they are considered reliable, but they seem to be.

MAL seems to be written by various volunteers. How do I know something written at MAL is accurate? It seems like it would depend on each user. So it is likely to be a less reliable source than ANN.

Like I said above, find some sources for Anime that both of you can agree on, and use those. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, have you read this: Misplaced Pages:General Disclaimer? It says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" (not my caps ..). Sites with user-generated content are not a reliable source. That includes the English Misplaced Pages, and hence, also the Japanese Misplaced Pages. Yes, sure, most of the info there is true and correct - but you can not be sure that it is correct (it does not have editorial oversight, parts may be wrong (even temporarily), etc.). You can not use it as a reliable source. That does not mean that the people who write the Japanese Misplaced Pages, or the other websites are liars .. the problem is, that you will have to find other sources to show that the work on these websites is correct (and not e.g. written by someone who is mistaken, or made a small mistake, or even a vandal who just passed by), which makes those the sources that you actually want to use here. --Dirk Beetstra 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by generated content. Anime and manga are part of the fandom, everything related to this media, info and databases are generated by communities and people around them. ANN is made by professionist that are anime and manga fans too since the beginning. MAL too. Animenation, the only source the moderator Farix use as a proof is a community too. If we deny these sources as a reliable source then everything is a lie. Also these are the only websites of news and databases on the entire internet (i point out that every anime and manga posted in wikipedia has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database). Also you can ask directly to a japanese administrator or moderator of wikipedia japan, he will sure know at 100% the meaning of this word in his motherlanguage and the proper usage of the terminology. Reikasama (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User-generated = made by volunteers. We have no idea if each volunteer is honest, even if 90% are honest, maybe 1 volunteer isn't. -- Avanu (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah i get now, no the database is made by professionist and locked, the community can only report errors but can't modify the database at all like here. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"i point out that every anime and manga posted in wikipedia has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database" - what do you mean .. do you mean that every Misplaced Pages page has an external link to ANN, and that therefore you think that ANN is a reliable source? Please do note then, that external links do not need to be a reliable source, they follow another set of rules on Misplaced Pages. --Dirk Beetstra 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go back to the kojikan page a lot of sources are linked to ANN, like the interview to the original author, because ANN do interview to mangakas and translate news from japanese media. So i assume that these are all reliable sources and ANN is automatically a reliable source. Is what i mean by linking news. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I just looked at Lolicon#2010s - present .. and all the references there go to ANN. All those ANN-news items are based on other (sometimes questionable) sources. As such, all those sources are useless without checking the actual sources. The actual sources should be used (when reliable), where the blog post can be used as an additional note-reference (to back-up the real source, and for readability). Although probably true, I would not trust the Misplaced Pages text in that paragraph based on the sources that I see here. Anyway, it is not a good idea to base conclusions on 'they do it there, so it must be fine here as well' .. maybe it is suboptimal or wrong 'there' as well. --Dirk Beetstra 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, if you consider ANN not a reliable source then 90% of the articles about anime and manga are a lie. ANN provide translations of japanese news and interview with mangakas, and more content like reviews, preview, and a solid database (locked not open to everyone). Is one of the few professional websites that provide these services. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

'not reliably sourced' does not equal 'a lie'. And some of the ANN items I checked in that section actually have a link to a better source, which, I presume, will say the same. Still, the linked site is then more reliable than ANN I would say, even if both say the same. --Dirk Beetstra 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, I don't want to have to argue the WP:RS page again... just read my post above. Sites with user generated content CAN be a reliable source, but they must first come under exceptional scrutiny. Please read the guideline, not make blanket statements. -- Avanu (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, Avanu .. --Dirk Beetstra 12:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An outside opinion from an uninvolved editor. I don't know much about anime/manga and have not looked closely at the sources he is trying to use but what I do see is several experienced editors banging their heads against the wall trying to convince Reikasama that the sources he is trying to use are not reliable sources. After looking at Reikasama's contribs I think this is a futile effort. When a typical editor loses an editing dispute, he can shrug, drop the stick and go "do something else". However, Reikasama seems to be here to remove the lolicon tag from Kodomo no Jikan and apparently that's the only thing he is here to do. That stick is permanently glued to his hands. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, because based on the sources i linked, expecially ANN, i get that lolicon is not a genre but a behaviour in Japan, here in the west is usend in a improper way like a category but originally isn't. ANN report it as a theme to go more deep in the description but not a genre. I want only edit the tags with appropriated tags picked up from ANN and MAL and discard the lolicon tag. I do not intend to edit more about the manga, rest is fine and properly explained. I've no more to say on this matter, choice is you admins to allow me to edit or not. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we can all agree on what Reikasama is here to do, it might be best to explain to him/her how to accomplish that goal. I'll give it a try.

The sources you provide, Reikasama, aren't necessarily wrong. What you need to recognize, however, is that they are not considered reliable by our standards. To get your way, you will have to understand why that is and find sources supporting your position which do not have the same problem. You seem to have understood already why the Japanese Misplaced Pages can't be used to back up your position, so I won't go into that. The same is the case with MAL, which is essentially a combination of a social networking website and an online encyclopedia. The situation is a little bit more complicated with ANN, which contains several kinds of contents all in the same web domain. It contains news (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/) which are widely used on the English Misplaced Pages as sources for release dates and the like. It has a forum (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/) which is essentially useless for our purposes. It contains reviews (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/) which are often used in "Reception" sections of our articles to cite the reviewer's opinion. Most importantly, it features an encyclopedia (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/) which is linked from just about every manga or anime article's "External links" section. This encyclopedia was once very widely used on the English language Misplaced Pages as a source for all kinds of information. That stopped following this discussion.

Bottom line: Misplaced Pages is not MAL or ANN. It has its own goals and policies. If you want to get anything done around here, you'll have to do it Misplaced Pages's way. Read WP:V and WP:IRS. Try to understand them. Ask questions if you don't understand. We are not evil gnomes trying to promote false information. You just have to give us sources we consider reliable. Continuing to insist that your sources are reliable will only get you blocked (meaning you won't be able to edit anymore) in the long run. And nobody wants that. Goodraise 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then link me source that you consider reliable because i fail to see the difference. Keeping the word lolicon as a genre is a false information. Since a lot of references are picked up from ANN i don't get how this website shouldn't mark as reliable, 80% of the references in the kojikan page are from ANN articles translate from this website. The database is locked, and you can only report errors so is not that everyone can edit content there. The database is maintaining by professionals reviewers. Since all references are from ANN why i can't use the same ANN for change a mere tag used improperly here? If you don't consider ANN reliable then remove all the ANN reference in that page and others, comvalidate them checking the original source then re-approve or delete. But is complicated and make no sense at all. Since the tag used on ANN stated that lolicon is not a genre but a theme i completely trust them as reliable source since the same ANN website is used to make articles here on wikipedia. I intend to change the tags into and remove the tag because inappropriate use of the original terminology and i base my source on the same source used to made these articles. I don't get why some source there are reliable and some not? Also the source linked by Farix are the same as ANN, but what he link isn't related to kijikan but stated a general opinion. also why don't ask directly to a japanese dmin or moderator the meaning of the word? A motherlanguage know what mean so you can have more proof. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encylopedia is not "made by professionist". It is made by any and all users who is willing to register an account on ANN's website. There is also no oversight of any of the contributions to their encyclopedia section and once information is entered, it can take months to change or correct. Even ANN's chief encyclopedist, who simply sets policy and doesn't actually verify any of the information, once stated that the encyclopedia section should not be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is made by professionist, people that once was anime and manga fans like me, now they work and get payd to maintain ANN database, do reviews and previews. The sources are reliable because all the articles translated are based on the original japanese page of the company or the author, from twitter and from personal diaries. All kojikan references are picked up from ANN translation articles. If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the reference used to write articles on wikipedia, kojikan included. Because is weird, all is ok but when i come here and edit a tag picked up fro the same source website is not ok anymore? There is a contraddiction. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I regularly use ANN's encyclopedia, including often reporting errors when I find them, and I can tell you that their encyclopedia is certainly not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. While ANNs reviews, articles, and news stories are written by paid professionals and are certainly reliable, the encyclopedia information can be freely added by anyone. Since information can be added by anyone, but cannot be removed or edited except by staff members, mistaken information is often introduced and then sits for years at a time. There are currently only about half a dozen people who can edit or remove information from the encyclopedia, and there are simply too many error reports for them to deal with them all in a timely manner. Furthermore, since the staff members only review information that is reported as erroneous, there could be errors that sit for years without ever being discovered. You just need to understand that even though ANN is in general a reliable site run by professionals, the encyclopedia portion just isn't relaible by Misplaced Pages standards. Calathan (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is managed by competent people for what i know and can't be edited by anyone, try to make an account and change it, you can't. This database is well managed with reliable informations about every serie not managed by the community. But since both ANN and MAL share the same tags and wiki not, how do you know that the wiki is a reliable source and the tags are correct? I've checked anime.nfo too, and even this website share the same tags, everything but wikipedia. So is not more a matter of this is right this is not, if 200 person told you that this is wrong and only 1 told you is right what do you do? You follow 1 or 200? Moreover what are Misplaced Pages standards? Before you told me that wikipedia is not a reliable source, i've linked the japanese wikipedia page as a proof but you discard it cause this, then i assume that also the english page is a fake and not a reliable source, so a question arise: who made the kojikan page at the beginning and put in the current tags is a reliable source? He just build the page and use these tags, but where is the source that claim that these are reliable and correct tags for this specific serie? I propose a fix because i know the proper terminology from a lot of different source about this serie, and all my sources aren't different from the source in here. They are still sources. Then again if everything in the web is not a valid source then even the actual kojikan page is a lie and is a fake and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch with reliable and valid sources. -_- Reikasama (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in meantime i find another source that use a different tag for this serie and the correct terminology. The author of the article of the AnimeNation staff use "lolita anime" or "loli anime" (abbreviated) as GENRE and not Lolicon as genre, because lolicon is not a genre but a theme. . Is this enought to trust my sources now and the tags i intend to use (listed before) to edit the kojikan page? Reikasama (talk)

The source you link supports the one that Farix has and completely undermines your own position. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? He stated clearly that "lolicon" is not a genre, is an improper use of terminology, infact i propose a lot of times to use as tag, completely different. I want point out that the tag i propose has the same meaning. since i linked several sources that clearly state that the tag isn't used or is used as a theme but genre. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read English or you are just selectively reading what you want to. John explicitly states that it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to believe anyone else who tells you the truth about ANN's encyclopedia, perhaps you will believe what Chris Macdonald, Chief Publisher and CEO of ANN, said about using their encyclopedia as a source and vicea versa. "Dan and I recently discussed this. Misplaced Pages is to be avoided as a source for the exact same reason that ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Misplaced Pages." —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you talking about? Misplaced Pages, stated by an administrator before, is not a reliable source for the reason that everyone can edit the content, on the other hand ANN is a reliable source not only because tons of references and articles are pick up from there but because is a professional website and sources there are reliable because they are directly translated from the original authors. I don't get your point. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are calling ANN's CEO and publisher a lair because he admits that the encyclopedia section is unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, ANN is not a reliable source. Most information is right and true, but you can not be sure what information is right and true. Even if there is, under thousands and thousands of editors, one single editor who cleverly inserts wrong information, then until you know who that one editor is who inserts the mistaken information, you do not know which information is wrong, and hence, all the information is suspect. As you say, 'they are directly translated from the original authors' -> those are the articles that are the reliable sources that Misplaced Pages should be based on, not on the translations, even if 99.99% of them is correct. The ANN could there be used as a quick-check source, but it should never be the source where information is based on. In Misplaced Pages: 'Statement.<ref>a reliable source</ref><ref>ANN source saying the same</ref>'. And note, in the section I mention above, there are ANN items based on twitter posts. ANN may correctly state what the original source says, but if the original source is not a reliable source, then ANN does not become a reliable source either. It can be used, but with very, very much care. --Dirk Beetstra 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the information gathered from there, delete the page and rewrite with reliable source discarding ANN. But since several website report that isn't a genre and label kojikan a simple manga i trust them as reliable source. Is enought, is not 1 but several. You know japanese? If so link me sources in japanese as reliable. Translations on ANN are correct and made by people who has study japanese language not random users. In the lolicon page another user point out that there aren't source and information that define a genre after some research he made through japanese wiki and other info websites. Lolicon is used in west simply for practical use. So if there isn't any reliable source that prove that is a genre there aren't reliable source that prove countrary and the terminology should be put on hold and not used till some concrete data coming out as reliable source. Reikasama (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. I explained that already. And note, the term used is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. --Dirk Beetstra 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And if the owner of the site says "ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Misplaced Pages" .. how do you know that all the translations are correct? --Dirk Beetstra 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, if you don't consider ANN translation reliable as a source then remove them all from the wikipedia kojikan page and relate pages to the side-terminology. Put the word in hold from usage till someone post another fully reliable source. If ANN is not a reliable source everything related to ANN is not. I can't accept that some of the translated source on ANN are reliable and some others not, and who decide that some are reliable and some not? You? Me? It make no sense. Or is all reliable or is all false, there aren't middle ways. Also consider that other users point out that doesn't exist a source that explain the word as a genre. If you keep the actual tag on kojikan without a proper reliabe source you keep on wikipedia a false and not confirmed statement. Reikasama (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Reikasama, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. I would strongly suggest that you don't remove the references. --Dirk Beetstra 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then i don't uderstand how wiki works, provide me argouments please. Because make zero sence that some articles from the same source are reliable and some not. Who decide and why some reference are ok and some not? Can you provide me links that you consider reliable source about the matter? Can you provide me a source that stated that the tag in a genre in Japan? Can you provide me links where you consider reliable a translation and where not? Because you continue to repeat "is not how wiki work" without provide example and reliable sources on how should work. Seems that you are forcing a one side vision and a personal opinion for principle and not using facts. No doubt various communities consider wikipedia a crappy and not a reliable source, you keep in false statements and discard true statements, spreading disnformation and providing no sources and allow your moderators (or people with high rank dunno) to block pages without any apparent reason even when people post sources, they simply decide that is not valid. I'm not good at use wikipedia but this is ridiculous and beyond any logic. 80.182.44.218 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's try and cut through all the arguments on either side and boil this down to brass tacks, folks, getting rid of the sidetracking as to whether ANN qualifies as a reliable source, and whether the American fanboy meanings of "hentai" and "ecchi" are correct Japanese. The short version, as I see it, is that Reikasama believes that lolicon isn't an appropriate term to use in the "genre" category for Kodomo no Jikan, as it's the Japanese contraction of "lolita complex" into a term that's much easier for Japanese-speaking people to say, and lolita complex isn't a genre, it's a psychological disorder (at least, under the current DSM-IV). Therefore, he removes it from the article's infobox, which is supportable since loli manga is already included as a genre. At this point, others revert his removal, and he re-reverts. This technically is the start of an edit war, but because the others continue reverting back to their version, rather than attempt to engage in discussion on the talkpage, we end up here. Is that an accurate summary? If so, then I'd say that:

• Reikasama did start an edit war, though through a good-faith attempt to improve the article.
• Other editors, rather than follow WP:BRD, responded by edit-warring to reinsert the removed tag, just making things worse.
• Reikasama has a valid point; I've not found any sources that define "lolicon" as an anime/manga genre, while the derivation of the word refers to a psychological complex that is distinctly not a genre of fiction, though its name is derived from a work of fiction.
• Those against removal of the tag from the genre insist that Reikasama provide a reliable source that it is *not* appropriate; this goes directly against WP:BURDEN, which states that the burden of proof lies on those inserting or restoring the information. This is a core aspect of the Verifiability policy, and is present because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. (Proving that it would be an inappropriate term would basically require showing that every single reliable source to the genre does not use the term lolicon, which would be a forever-moving target anyway, as new sources pop up every day.)
• While everyone involved behaved badly once the edit war started, Reikasama's initial edit was not disruptive and was supported by policy. The use of "lolicon" in the genre category isn't sourced, and is thus subject to removal as unsourced, with the same information implicit in the "loli manga" genre that is supported by sources.

My verdict: Trouts all around, and a suggestion to take the discussion to the article talkpage and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you still want to hash out whether or not ANN qualifies under WP:RS. Just my non-admin opinion, of course, but that's my read on the situation. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yout statement is correct, the only thing i edit was remove the tag and use different tags picked up from these sources i provide. Then i told to the moderator that he can use instead because is more appropriate and is considered a genre both in the west and in Japan. Lolicon in Japan is considered only a behaviour not a genre. Then the moderator lock the page, he insist that my sources aren't reliable where in the same page there are a lot of resources picked up from the same ANN source i do, this is a contraddiction. After we are here to discuss. Speaking back in the discussion page of Kojikan is useless at this point, moderator still lock the page and think in one way. I've contacted the superadmin Fastily 2 days ago about the matter too, he told me that i have persmission and rights to edit the tags when the page back unlocked based on the sources i provided. Honestly now i have no idea what to do. Reikasama (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@rdfox 76: One detail I think you missed is that at least some of the editors in opposition to the removal appear to hold that this article supports labeling Kodomo no Jikan as belonging to the genre "lolicon". What bothers me somewhat is that I don't find the term "loli manga" anywhere in the article. You said it was "included". Where? As for your verdict, I'm in agreement with you.

@Reikasama: Have patience. That's what editing on Misplaced Pages is all about. Take a deep breath. Never mind that the article temporarily shows incorrect information. Try to understand why people disagree with you. Read Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines (starting with WP:V and WP:IRS) to learn what those editors are talking about when they tell you that something is not how Misplaced Pages works. Misplaced Pages is much like a body of water. You can dive in slowly and softly or fast and painfully hard. We're all human and making mistakes. Try not to get too frustrated with us. Goodraise 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in hurry don't worry, just i read these link you provide but still i don't get why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not, i don't get the principle and who decide if a source is reliable and another not. I link this website on AN because the guys who respond to the question refer to kojikan as “lolita anime” as genre. and have 2 completely different meanings. The first is an offensive word used on the original country to explain a behaviour and don't belong to the content of this manga that has a seinen demography. Since i'm a reader of this manga and find this error in the wiki page i propose a simple fix with different tags, or in alternative a tag that 1) don't change the meaning of the old tag because has the same interpretation 2) is not a denigratory terminology. All the websites that review this manga do not use this tag but a different one and more than 1, the ones i propose from the source i linked. Only here in wikipedia this manga is tagged in this improperly way. Reikasama (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not"? "who decide if a source is reliable and another not"? -- ANN is one source and many sources at the same time. It depends on how you look at it. Also, there is no reliable sources. And there is no unreliable sources. The same source can be reliable for one piece of information and unreliable for another. The decision whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose is made by the community of Misplaced Pages's editors (all of them, including you). How that works is explained here: Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Goodraise 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that that's not true, Goodraise. If the ANN is an open wiki, then it's not reliable for anything other than non-promotional comments about itself (such as would be used in an article on ANN itself). This is a case where it's pretty cut and dry: open wikis aren't reliable sources; if this is an open wiki (or nearly open) as it seems to be, then all references to it should be removed from all articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind telling me exactly what part of what I said you don't agree with? Goodraise 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama's (I presume you were logged out) reply to me of 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC): If a statement is there without a reference, it may be true or untrue, that is then difficult to check. Those sentences get tagged with a {{cn}} if one gives it the benefit of the doubt. If there is a reference, it is more likely to be true, even if it is referenced to an unreliable source. That does not mean that the statement is false, but that it needs a double check. The lousy solution is to add {{verify source}} and move on, the best solution is to actually check whether you can verify that what the unreliable source says is actually verifiable in a reliable source. For ANN that is very often possible, as they do link on to reliable sources (but also sometimes in themselves again to unreliable sources). If you can find a reliable source which verifies the ANN statement and which also verifies the statement on Misplaced Pages, then you should insert that reliable source as a reference (the statement on Misplaced Pages then gets 2 references), if the statement is not supported by any reliable sources, you will have to make the consideration, whether the statement is likely correct, and then consider to either remove the statement with the reference, tag the ref with a {{verify source}} or remove the ANN ref and replace it with a {{cn}}. In some cases, it may also be necessary to remove the ANN source, and replace it with a reliable source you found.

As it stands now, statements with an ANN source are likely correct, and the ANN source should lead you to better sources in any way. Removing them without question would be destruction of information which could help in improving the article in the end, and that is what I suggested you should certainly not do. That approach should only be taken when the unreliable source has been shown to contain a lot of completely wrong or misleading info, and that is certainly not the case here.

These articles aren't checked as reliable, the information are just picked up from ANN by someone and put in the page. Nobody touch them, i wont because i find them ok. Then i do the same with the tags but the moderator locked the page. There is something wrong here, seems that the moderator want the information on this page like he want and refuse everything else. I don't get it. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The key to it is, that "'unreliable source' does not equal 'wrong'". Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source. Still, I guess that way over 95% of the info here is correct. Hardly anything here is verified, a lot of it is verifiable through reliable sources, and of the amount of data that is verified nor verifiable (or verifiable only through unreliable sources) still a lot is correct as well. A massive number of pages here do get some attention from specialists who do generally weed out gross mistakes. Removing everything that is not verified/verifiable would remove a lot of valuable and correct info.

Then you consider these info valuables and mine not, i deserve to be locked and my post deleted? Using this concept everything not reliable should be put on hold and checked before approved. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And though specialists do use data from Misplaced Pages, they will hardly ever use it as the definite source, it all needs to be double checked against reliable sources (but Misplaced Pages is a great resource in getting there). For ANN it is the same. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wont delete anything as i said before. I only point out the contraddiction that some articles are reliable and some not and some people here decide that these info are ok and others not blockin the pages and delete fixes only because they can. These sources on ANN are used to made the kojikan page but that, using your logic, doesn't mean that they are reliable. So my conclusion is that if you consider ANN not worth then everything picked up from ANN isn't and should be put on hold and checked one by one by an expert. Amirite? I agree with Qwyrxian on this point. Honestly i find these resources translated by ANN correct but is only my opinion and don't matter, infact my only purpose is to edit a tag not the entire article. @Goodraise Well, i provide sources to clarify that this terminology is wrong as a tag, since you said that wiki is not a reliable source because managed by everyone then i find nothing wrong to change the tag with a tag that i consider reliable. I explain already several times why i intend to change it (read before about offensive terminology in the origin country), Rdfox 76 explain the situation too. Reikasama (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not "is this particular information at ANN accurate", which is arguably 90-something percent correct. It's that "this site has no professional editing and fact checking process".

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source by our own standards, because we have no professional fact checking, editorial review, etc. We have a lot of amateurs, and we're pretty good, but we are not a source of facts. We list references to sources which are good sources that meet our reliability criteria.

ANN is not a reliable source by our standards.

We're not insulting ANN saying that. You need to respect Misplaced Pages's reliable source standards and abide by them here. That's not negotiable.

This is a nuanced fine point of english language. It's very important. Please work hard to understand it and work harmoniously with Misplaced Pages standarts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, not necessarily on hold. It is still a useful place to get info, but it should be accompanied by a reliable source.

Fine, then with this same logic i can edit with my sources and put in them, they still are usefull like the rest till someone will accompany them with more reliable sources. Amirite? Reikasama (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And it is not an assumption that it is not a reliable source, it is even what the website owner of ANN is stating. Again, unreliable does not mean that it is wrong, that is NOT what we are saying. Not knowing if it is correct is not the same as wrong.

You say here 'i find these resources translated by ANN correct' - so, they are translated from something, that is the reliable source (if that is a reliable source in itself, of course) that should be used, and the ANN translation can then be an additional source. If you use ANN in that way (adding both the original ánd the ANN translation) then that is the way to go. --Dirk Beetstra 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Then my source is reliable and i have the right to change this improper terminology and improve wikipedia. Because the ANN enciclopedya is translated from the summary of the original works. Episodes listed are translated from the original source along with cover images and the link to the company page. Unlock the page and let me change the tag, you can check yourself the links from ANN where the same ANN translate and gathering info or you want me do it and put here japanese pages? But you know japanese? Ehhh no i assume so you need a translator and the loop start again because you don't know if the translation is correct assuming that ANN is not a reliable source like you have stated till now. Do you see the fail in all this? I don't believe that in other wikipages people is so blind like here and do a war like this for a mere tag (that have the same meaning). Reikasama (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No .. because there is no editorial oversight on the translations. ANN is not a reliable source. Yes, if the reliable source is in Japanese, then so be it. We are talking about verifiability, Reikasama, the ability to verify. We also have sources behind paywalls. Some of those sources are not available to me, but that does not invalidate them as a reliable source, or that we can not use them. --Dirk Beetstra 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the actual infos are considered verifiability or not? Because you told me not before, so why they still are there? Let me put more info and when more source are availbale edit and fix them. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that ANN is unreliable in its entirety. Its news and views sections are reliable sources. However, anyone and add information into their encyclopedia section and there is no verification of any of the information entered. But getting that information changed when its proven to be inaccurate talks a long time. ANN's encyclopedia is not based on translations of the original Japanese sources. Instead, much of the information is based on fansites, forums, twitter, episode credits, official website, and yes, Misplaced Pages. In fact, none of the genres listed in ANN's encyclopedia entry have any sources. I know this first hand because I have contributed to ANN's encyclopedia and flagged several errors, many of which have yet to be corrected. I can go right now and add science fiction as a genre to ANN's encyclopedia entry and it will show up. But I'm not going disrupting ANN's encyclopedia just to prove a point. That is why WP:ANIME has a detail explanation of which parts of ANN are reliable and which parts are not and it specifically lists the encyclopedia section as unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only ANN admins can modify the encyclopedia page, the same who write articles posted here, it is managed by them. Random users can only report errors and admins correct the info after. It is, infos are picked up from original websites. Episodes titles, covers and summaries. Kokikan has. They don't fix error if they aren't accurate. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, either you have absolutely no clue how ANN's encyclopedia works or you are being completely disingenuous by ignoring all facts that doesn't fit your view. For now, I'm going to assume the former. What I stated about the information on ANN's encyclopedia is completely correct. It is not written by the ANN staff, instead it, like Misplaced Pages, is written by volunteers like me and others. If you don't believe me, then go ask them yourself. The fact remains that the genres listed on their entry do not have any reliable sources if they have any sources at all. Quoting from ANN's entry, "Genres: comedy (i) audit | no source , drama (i) audit | source , romance (i) audit | no source"." Oh lookie there, they are citing Misplaced Pages as a source for one of their genres, which is no longer supported do to lack of verifiability on Misplaced Pages's end. —Farix (t | c) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also want to stress Farix's point above, as I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what Anime News Network is and are making incorrect statements on its reliability. Anime News Network is primarily a website reporting anime and manga news, reviewing anime and manga, and containing other articles written about anime and manga. In that respect, ANN is definitely a reliable source, as the people working on it are experienced professionals, and all news, reviews, and articles are overseen by professional editors. In fact, as stated at WP:A&M/ORS#Situational, ANN is essientially the newspaper of record for anime and manga news, as it generally has the most significant editorial oversight and most experienced writers among sources dedicated to anime and manga news. While ANN learns of anime news from other sources (just as a newspaper or magazine must get their information from somewhere), it does not merely translate news stories from Japanese websites or anything like that. Once the news is reported on ANN, that means it has been vetted by ANN's editorial staff, and can be trusted as reliable (again, this is just like how news reported in a newspaper works).

This is valid of all articles published, so why those articles are here in wikipedia as reliable? Have you checked them? Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said, ANN has other sections of their website besides the news, reviews, and articles. These include a press release section (which obviously wouldn't be considered independent from the companies making the press releases), an "interest" section which is not necessarily reliable (again see WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), forums (which obviously aren't generally reliable), and the encyclopedia. While there is a paid staff member who oversees the encyclopedia, it is primarily user submitted data (not necessarily translated from a Japanese source), so it isn't reliable. As Farix stated above, before citing something from Anime News Network it is necessary first to check which section of the website it comes from, as parts of the website are reliable and parts are not. Calathan (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC) @Reikasama: Here's something you don't seem to understand: The editors involved in this incident (including you) have misbehaved. That is why it was brought up here at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The page wasn't locked to endorse a particular version of the article. It was locked, because you and several other editors were edit-warring instead of discussing. Here on this page, we're not concerned with article content (such as what anime belongs into which genre). We deal with editor conduct. What you (and everyone else) should have done is to discuss the issue on the talk page until resolved. Being the inexperienced editor that you are, your misbehavior is completely understandable and forgivable. But now that you've been told, you (and the other editors involved) are expected to go back to Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and try to come to a consensus. There will be no higher power intervening on behalf of either side. It's not what has happened and it's not what will happen. Another thing: Editing Misplaced Pages articles is not a right, but a privilege that can be revoked at any time if the editor in question doesn't play by the rules. Goodraise 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since them don't provide me links that stated that the terminology is a genre and the word has unreliable resources to begin with it should be put on hold and re-checked with properly sources. There is no consensus on this, is a fact. Lolicon is japana is NOT a genre and will never be. There is only a solution and is to change the teminolgy with a word that have the same meaning both in the west and east, and is or . Or keep the page locked forever with false statements and not reliable sources. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at Lolicon#Genre characteristic that demonstrates that lolicon is a genre. But then, you've been dismissing those as well because it doesn't fit your view. —Farix (t | c) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to ANN i find exactly the main page of the producer in Japan. , the retailer and the original author blog . So you continue to claim that ANN has no reliable sources. All infos are gathered from here. Comic High is a seinen magazine and is the publisher. Where is this genre that the arctile on wikipedia claiming? I'm not able to find this word anywhere there. So what? Maybe is because is a bs and a false statement invented in the west? Can you provide me a link where explain that kojikan belong to this hypothetic genre? Since i provide you original sources now is your turn, can you provide me a valid link that convalidate at 100% what is written in the actual locked page of Kojikan? Unfortunately i presume you can't because these links point out to the original creator and publisher and there ins't anything else reliable as much as this. Deny that is not a genre is pratically say that the publisher and the creator aren't reliable sources and liars. If you provide me proof that 1) is a genre and 2) Kojikan belong to this genre with reliable sources i give up and leave the page alone. Reikasama (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reikasama, please stop inserting replies in the middle of other comments. I see you have placed a reply into the middle of my last comment, placed replies in the middle of the comment I was replying to, and placed replies between my comment and the comment I was replying to, while also changing the indentation of some parts of some comments. That makes it very difficult to follow the flow of the comments or to tell who wrote what. Please don't do that. Please read Help:Using talk pages and try to follow the instructions there on replying to comments and indentation. Calathan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, speedy-keeps and WP:INVOLVED

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

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just speedy-kept two successive AfDs I started on the same article – both only ~2 minutes old – with a spurious reason, despite Sarek having strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with me and strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with the article and with Doctor Who content in general.
The AfD nominations were/are not in bad faith, and I would like them to run their course without a biased admin stifling discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh... If you agree that in three days the article will be fully fleshable , is it really crucial to ensure all the round pegs are in the round holes (...as halfway through the AFD, your rationale will become no longer relevant)? –xeno 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should probably !vote 'keep' in the AfD if you hold the view that articles that 'will' become notable are fine. It's not a view I hold. However, this is about Sarek's outrageous INVOLVED violations and rollback abuse – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In other words, bad-faith nomination, as I said. Twice. The second time was worse faith, because TT knows that WP:DRV is the proper venue for contesting a close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also contesting your rampant violation of WP:INVOLVED, WP:RBK etc. And seriously considering asking for an interaction ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The episode will be notable and will take place (i.e. be transmitted) next Saturday. There are already numerous sources for it, including an interview with one of the actors on the BBC website, and an interview with Mark Gatiss in Radio Times. You need to stop this, pretty quickly. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF?. Seriously - its the next Doctor Who episode that airs in a week, and given that every episode of the new series has had critical review, it is completely bad faith to assume this one won't be notable and must be deleted. And then to revert the speedy close 4 times??? --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is how there are 19K -- Nineteen thousand -- page views for the episode a day ago, which is a sign to me that it should not be deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh derr... Well this didn't go quite how I had hoped. As an FYI, TreasuryTag was blocked for ten days for edit warring, and then indefinitely for disruptive editing - I gather discussion of this will probably take place in the ongoing WP:AN#TreasuryTag thread. –xeno 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, TT, but did you try looking for sources in the references? I did, and found three, two of which were non-trivial, and one of those was quite significant. Your entire delete rationale was mooted before you began, and it appears the AfD nomination was a tit-for-tat response to your attempt at redirecting being reverted. Instead of discussing, you chose to escalate. When that was shut down, you chose to edit war. When you became disruptive, use of rollback was justified. Resolute 19:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate ending up on the same side of an issue as a potentially abusive user. But in this case I have to ask: what is the harm in letting the AfD process continue? Speedy-close as a "bad-faith nom" should be kept to remarkably clear cases, someone nominating Earth or Christianity in an attempt to prove a point. In this case there are several valid reasons to file an AfD, that the user has an absolute belief in WP:CRYSTAL, that they want to make a test case that until an episode is known to be notable there shouldn't be a standalone article, whatever. Calling them a vandal and shutting down the process isn't an appropriate response. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, the harm in leaving the AfDs consists in continuing to send the message (received by the Internet loud and clear for the past 5+ years at minimum) that Misplaced Pages can, any time one likes, be ruinously trolled by the most blatant gaming of process. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I think the message to the community that certain types of article are beyond questioning is equally dangerous to wikipedia. What is the harm of having to justify an article's existence? If I had my way more articles would be discussed in the manner of AfD, good articles have nothing to fear from a challenge. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the policies and guidelines on AfD's and Speedy Keep, it could be said that Sarek was acting as 'editor Sarek' when he closed the AfD in this manner. Non-admins *are* allowed to close deletion discussions, and even use a Speedy Keep rationale. I think part of the confusion stems from the idea that most of the time, admins are the ones to close deletion discussions (because they are the only ones who can delete a page), and it is arguably confusing for a person who is an admin to exercise an editing function that is typically left to admins, but actually acting as merely an editor. I suppose a question now is, rather than WP:INVOLVED, did Sarek violate WP:COI? The Non-admin closure essay says an editor should not close if "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate."

I'm not really sure Sarek actually did anything wrong, but it probably would have been advantageous to allow another editor or admin to Speedy Keep. -- Avanu (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Sarek didn't do anything wrong, or rather if he did it was only being slightly overzealous as an editor, not an administrator. My only concern is that I favor a very high bar for procedural speedy keeps. I've seen a disturbing trend lately of questionable speedy keeps based on the nature of the nominator or the like that poisons a subsequent AfD with the "second nomination" stigma and ends with "close bad nom, wait 30 seconds, someone opens a valid nom, start discussion all over" HominidMachinae (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. The first speedy close was sketchy, in that it did not explain a rationale for calling what seemed a good faith nomination to be a "Bad Faith Nomination." Assume good faith, yes? The sources showing in the article were and are crap, whether one wants to keep or delete or has no opinion, that must be agreed. The second close looks to this outside observer to have been an exercise of poor judgment; another administrator should have been summoned to confirm the action. It was the practical equivalent of edit warring with closures at AfD. Very, very bad judgment, in my opinion. And Treasury Tag is the one wearing a ban over this? Odd. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, TT does kind of get carried away, but WP:CIVIL has an expectation of each of us -- the pok-er-mon and the pok-ee-mon. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• While I hate throwing mud around, especially at ANI and especially against an admin I respect, I think Sarek demonstrated incredibly poor judgement at best here, and it seems to have gone largely unnoticed because of the high-profile nature of the various sanctions imposed on TT these last few days. Sarek and TT have a long history of animosity (particularly surrounding Doctor Who articles) which one need only make a cursory search of the archives of this noticeboard to see. Sarek has previously undertaken not to take admin action with regards to TT, and I believe an interaction ban between them has been considered on at least one occasion. Not to mention that Sarek's rather-too-liberal-at-times interpretation of INVOLVED (particularly pertaining to TT) was a common rationale in the opposition at Sarek's reconfirmation RfA in May.

  Given all that, Sarek should have posted at AN or just waited for other editors or admins to decide what to do with TT's AfDs instead of intervening himself, and certainly shouldn't have just repeatedly whacked the rollback button. I'm tempted to say that the ten-day block for edit warring should be reinstated, especially given that TT is now indef'd (though I have agreed to negotiate terms with him for an unblock in a week or so), but that wouldn't serve any benefit to the encyclopaedia so I won't. I would like to see some acknowledgement from Sarek that he could have handled this better, and that he won't intervene against TreasuryTag in what could be construed as an admin capacity (or at all if it can be helped) in future. I also think we as a community should collectively encourage Sarek to stay away from TT if/when the latter is unblocked and to exercise more caution when dealing with users with whom he's been in disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Consider TreasuryTag's recent interactions with Xeno, and compare them with his interactions with me. Does he just get to eliminate one admin after another from dealing with him? I have no history of animosity with TT -- I have a history of him accusing me of involvement, harassment, you name it -- whenever I dared object to his actions. (Which I didn't always -- I speedied a number of articles he tagged.) And regarding me posting at AN, note this thread we're in -- and how many times TT reverted after posting it. I've got a much better idea. How about instead of me running and hiding, TreasuryTag learns how to actually work here without attacking people who disagree with him?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • TreasuryTag has his problems, which is why he has a block log a mile long and why he's indef'd at the minute, and believe me I'm far from his biggest fan, but I don't think the two of you have ever agreed on anything, and you should have known better than to get into this silly dispute. You had all sorts of other options, but you chose to keep whacking the rollback button—what did you think would happen? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Never agree? Little cauliflower theatre, Blitzkrieg (card game), he tagged and I deleted. File:AmyPondSeries6.jpg, he tagged as orphaned fair use, and I left it to run the full length, at which point someone else deleted it. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Executive summary, he nominated, I initially agreed before the article was improved. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PhytonInc, we agreed.

        On the other hand, when I objected to him claiming that sources talking about a synagogue in Winston Salem supported an article about a synagogue in St. Louis, I was "only interested in (attempted) point-scoring" against him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

    • - I am also very very disappointed in Sareks behavior since his Reconfirmation RFA (which I supported) - he has continued as previous with his involved actions and I no longer support his continuing as an administrator. As for TT , he has lost complete focus here and until he sees and agrees not to carry on like that, he should stay indefinitely blocked. As for Sarek - an administrator that has been blocked three times since May clearly has "issues" to address. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Two of those blocks were intentional violations of 3RR - the only way I could see to keep the other editor from continuing to damage the encyclopedia was to give up my own ability to edit for a while. Granted, this latest one I didn't see coming. I disagree with you that I have continued as before, though -- I have made much more use of noticeboards since my RFA. Maybe not sufficiently so, but my behavior has changed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Rubbish, Sarek! Between the block and protect buttons, the 800 other active admins on WP, and the various noticeboards, the only way to prevent damage was to get into an edit war? If you appealed a block with that rationale, any admin in their right mind would decline the appeal without getting past the seventh word. Somehow almost every other admin manages not to get into a situation where their conduct in enforcing policy isn't left open to question, but not you. How is that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I disagree. Sarek was administrating a behavioral problem with TreasuryTag. Those rollbacks were an administrator response to an abuse of editing privileges by TT. In this respect, it is no different from rolling back vandalism. The normal response would be for Sarek to block TT, but WP:INVOLVED would get in the way. Maybe it wasn't the ideal response, but it was still technically within his remit as an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I didn't appeal the blocks, as you'll notice. Maybe the reason other admins' actions aren't called into question is that rest of the admins are smart enough not to play near tarpits. Those two blocks were in edit wars with Doncram (talk · contribs). Note the 204K of discussion archived here. There's a reason I thought nothing short of getting myself blocked would have results... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• It doesn't take a genius to see that the AfD in question would clearly result in a "keep", and that bringing the article to AfD in the first place was a waste of time. Without delving too deeply into the matter, I would be inclined to say that that the rationale given for speedy keeping the first AfD was inadequate, but not entirely inaccurate. Obviously the second AfD was a bad faith nomination, so the rationale for that speedy keep was spot on. I hardly think that Sarek's lack of verbosity on the first AfD closure warrants an ANI discussion. molehill >> MOUNTAIN -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with HJ Mitchell and Off2riorob here. I was pretty unhappy about the way Sarek flouted WP:INVOLVED in relation to TT and another editor just prior to his reconfirmation RfA. Indeed those two incidents are really what lead up to it unless I'm mistaken. There was also significant support for an interaction ban between the Sarek and TT, though no clear consensus emerged. Those unfamiliar really ought to have a look at the reconfirmation RfA, and not just the opposes but the supports as well. People expected that Sarek had learned to step back if there would be a question about involvement in the future, and this doesn't do him any favors in that regard. Those do look like bad faith nominations, but someone else could have handled them.Griswaldo (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• They needed to be closed as disruptive AFD's. It doesn't matter who nominated them, nor really who closed them. It was for the betterment of the project, and it really was not even against any rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• The drama caused by editors with unpleasant histories taking admin action on each other is never worth the extra 5 minutes it would take to find another admin.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• And, fyi, it appears to be "against rules," like in this case WP:INVOLVED which reads - "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I don't think it could be clearer than that. You have a bad history with an editor, then keep away from admin actions related to them. It's pretty simple.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Sarek has even previously undertaken not to intervene in an admin capacity with regards to TT, and his disputes with TT were brought up in the reconfirmation RfA, so this isn't new. Yes, the AfDs should have been closed, but it's not as if only Sarek could possibly have closed them, and given the extra drama that he knew, or should have known, would result from not waiting a few minutes for another admin (or any editor, a non-admin close would have been easily justifiable) to close them, choosing to get involved himself was extraordinarily poor judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• WP:INVOLVED also says "In cases which are straightforward..., the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of editors have criticised your handling of this issue, so I don't think it's as straightforward as you make it out to be. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Those criticisms have generally been based on overly pedantic interpretations of the rules, contrary to both common sense and WP:BURO. Sarek is right not to take them too seriously. If TT came out of all this with, essentially, no serious consequences, it's adamn good bet that no admin is going to take action against SoV based on this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, I disagree. I don't think there's anything overly pedantic or bureaucratic in most of the contributions to this discussion. Would you care to point some out? Reyk _YO! 00:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• You can disagree, that's your right, but unless there's some admin action that is likely to be taken or even being asked for, this discussion has no further point in this venue. Discuss it with Sarek on his talk page or open an RfC on him if you'd like, that would seem to be the appropriate action if you feel his actions are out of line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll be frank. Sarek ought to give up his admin bit since he clearly is incapable of abiding by the consensus at his reconfirmation RfA regarding issues of WP:INVOLVED. That's an admin action (taken by Sarek, an admin) that needs to happen.Griswaldo (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Resigning one's bit is a personal action, not a use of admin tools, therefore not an admin action. Open an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on PI

I'm not quite sure on this so I thought I'd ask. If a Wikipedian posts their own personal information on their Misplaced Pages user page, is that allowable or is it a policy breach? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no general policy against it. As per WP:USERPAGE#Personal and privacy-breaching material, users are cautioned about doing so, but there's no rule they cannot. There's a general practice of revdel/oversight when young minors post too much personal information. In the latter situation, my usual practice is to contact someone at oversight rather than post it on a noticeboard (which would otherwise defeat the very issue being looked into). Singularity42 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There can also be issues when a userpage is obviously being used for promotional purposes. Are you suggesting that's the case here? And of course, there is the __NOINDEX__ template which helps defeat that. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content". Additionally, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators". That generally implies not being coy about precisely which editor one is looking for sanctions on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mbiama Assogo Roger - Removing links

I do not know what this user is trying to do, but they appear to be using a bot. --Escape Orbit 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on what's on the User Talk page, it may be an erring use of Twinkle's unlink backlinks function. My 2p is that such a function really should be limited to use by admins, or other users who have the technical ability to delete articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He's targeting a particular page for un-linking. Don't see why, however, he seems to be active on fr.wikipedia and he's posted a message on another wiki in French, so perhaps he's not fluent in English? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New account creating a bunch of other accounts

In the user creation log today, I observed User:Little Red Corvette Guy creating a bunch of other accounts; see account creation log for this user. I asked the creator why he was doing this, but he failed to respond. Thoughts? User has been notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear the unmistakable quacking of MascotGuy? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems clear to me. I have blocked all the accounts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't we had checkusers shut down his IP so he can't register accounts anymore?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy suggests he repeatedly changes IPs. It might be a temporary fix to block a current IP or range, but considering his persistence, unlikely to be useful in the long term. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but are these account farms even him?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been going on for years. There's an edit filter setup to detect his account creation. Talking to him is a futile effort. Just block and ignore him until the next day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's all over the CIDR spectrum, making it impossible to make any single rangeblock to stop him. –MuZemike 21:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

why are non-autoconfirmed accounts allowed to create others? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• An excellent question. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• To annoy the hell out of people who watch the new user log, perhaps? When I see MascotGuy pop up, I don't even bother saying anything beyond "get the accounts he created too", and it almost always gets responded to within seconds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is so accounts with inappropriate usernames (i.e. company names or website names) can create a more appropriately-named account after being blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is there any reason for non autoconfirmed accounts to create more than one extra account? TNXMan 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for anyone (aside from ACC folks) to create more than two accounts in the same day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support lowering the threshhold for account creation from 6 to 2 accounts per IP/account per 24 hours. Really, the only people who go above 2 accounts are sockpuppeteers. The ACC folks (like myself) all have (or had, in the case of admins) 'accountcreator', so they can ignore the limit anyway. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-autoconfirmed accounts, couldn't the limit even be 1 per day? I can't see any reason for them to need more than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but shouln't this conversation be on the policy section of the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

There is currently a DRV pertaining to an AFD 4 years ago. At the time of the AFD Ernest Emerson was a featured article and the discussion featured around the question its qualification as such. The article was kept and the AFD followed by a FAR which retained its status. The DRV is going down the same route discussing content and FAR status as the original AFD closure cannot be contended. I am also concerned with the long inactivity of the nominator appearing out of nowhere to do this DRV. The main contributor to the FAR has asked me to facilitate a speedy close. I can't do that myself as I have commented already after seeing the DRV advertised on CSCWEM's talkpage. Can someone speedy close the DRV or alternatively point me to something I missed. 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I speedy closed it - you can't challenge a keep this far out. They can file a new AfD if they want. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the AFD would gain much traction... But people are within their rights to do silly things. --Jayron32 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

An AFD on a featured article? What did today's date change to 4/1? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Last night, my fancy "atomic clock" said the date was December 7. I looked around just to make sure I wasn't standing on the USS Nimitz. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wildthing, FAs have been deleted through AfD before. The FA criteria say nothing about notability, and delegates (including me) cannot take notability concerns into account when closing the nomination. That said, modern FAs are held to a higher standard than those from years ago, and modern ones are generally required to have a lot of reliable sources, which means the articles meet the GNG. Older FAs don't necessarily meet that standard. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:National Transitional Council

I'm assuming that Jimfbleak made an innocent mistake when he deleted the discussion page for National Transitional Council under G8, but he hasn't responded to my message on his talk page and the issue is somewhat pressing, as various editors were about to start a much-needed discussion after an edit-war over changing the article name. (I'm not participating in the edit-war or the discussion, but it was on my watchlist for unrelated reasons.)

Can an admin please restore the article's discussion page? Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done; must have been a script error or misclick. –xeno 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it had been tagged {{db-g6|rationale=To move ] back to this namespace}} which asserts a non-controversial move by User:Russavia. I had no idea that this was not the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal

174.101.157.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been, for all of this year, sneaking incorrect information into the personnel listings for albums by the band Lonestar (e.g. Lonestar (album)). This vandalism often goes unnoticed for months on end because the pages get such little traffic. Could I ask an admin to keep an eye on this editor and/or all the pages in Category:Lonestar albums? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked six months. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on tendentious editing of policy at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability started

(moved to WP:AN; not an incident) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block needed for edit-warring

User:Me-123567-Me needs a block for edit warring. In short: Me and User:117Avenue get it on on Yukon general election, 2011, neither behave very well but I give it to 117 on points, in part also because Me reports 117 for edit-warring, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117Avenue_reported_by_User:Me-123567-Me_.28Result:_Declined.29. The complaint is declined by C.Fred for all the right reasons; C.Fred reverts to an earlier, pre-war version (which happens to be 117's preferred version). Moreover, Fastily rightly says that the next one to revert deserves an immediate block. Unfortunately, I only saw that after I had reverted Me's second (!) revert after Fastily's note, and after 117 had--apparently--stepped away from this rather stupid war.

Anyway, Me was whining, in my opinion, going to the 3R board (being just as guilty), and I don't want to be whined at for 'being involved'. I would like an uninvolved admin to look at this and (hopefully) enforce Fastily's warning by blocking Me for a little while, long enough to where they know that edit-warring is not OK, and restoring the article to what it was before the edit war. And, of course, suggesting to these two that they need to etc. etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Me-1234567-Me is at his third revert for the night. The question at this point is, what's his next act? Does he go to the talk page for discussion, or does he make a fourth revert? If it's the latter, then it's an easy, obvious block for 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, C.Fred--nothing escapes you! As far as I'm concerned, they don't need to break that clear line: they are guilty of edit warring in the letter and the spirit, and seem to have no interest in (or patience for) consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they both need a 24-hour time out. This is ridiculous! LadyofShalott 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I started a second discussion, but 117Avnue refuses to discuss it. He simply thinks he's right. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep--now 117 is also playing the part of the fool. Maybe 36 hours? Lady, are you u n i n v o l v e d ? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit I could and should be a cooler head, but it doesn't help when 177 doesn't bargain in good faith. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. They were acting in good faith, at least on the talk page--and until they also lost their cool. Me, I have a word of advice for you: convention counts for something, and being in a hurry to change something is probably not a good idea. We're not writing this thing for tomorrow or tonight: there is no rush. Find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They both have 24 hours to think about things. LadyofShalott 03:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And another 48 hours before they can change the article: another admin has full-protected it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(As a note, calling the editor "Me" is a bit confusing if you miss the username at the top. "Me was whining", "...and (hopefully) enforce Fastily's warning by blocking Me for a little while" and "Me, I have a word of advice for you" had me very confused for a moment.) - SudoGhost 08:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Fox#SPR, Society for Psychotherapy Research

Not all that sure if this is the right place; can someone have a look into this and tell me what in the bloody hell is going on here? Three "different" professors all for the recreation of an article deleted as a copyvio? — Joseph Fox 07:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be a member of SPR and I know these three professors personally - I have no doubt this really is them making a co-ordinated appeal. I'll reply there and try and offer my services. Kim Dent-Brown 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would appear to me that four bona fide members of the Society for Psychotherapy Research wondered why the article - a neutral description of the Society itself - was deleted, especially as they created and held the rights to the material. From the full disclosure of their relationship to the Society on your talk-page , I very much doubt there is any issue of sock-puppetry. The problem is the article (I can see it as cached by Google) was, word for word, from The Society for Psychotherapy Research's "about us" page. (edit conflict) Looks like Admin Kim Dent-Brown is on the case, I'll butt out now. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If, as you say, they had created "and held the rights to the material" I am unsurprised the content was deleted as a copyvio - unless there was a specific release of the content compliant to WP's licenses, it would seem that the action was in good faith. I suggest that Kim Dent-Browns assistance includes ensuring the content that duplicates the subjects website is released under WP's licenses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP address

Please review this edit and the ones around it, including the edit summary that instructs me to engage in a sexual act with the editor. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know that an editor is entitled to remove warnings from their userpage - it is considered notification that it has been read - restoring them is a pretty aggressive action. I'm also pretty sure that "fuck me mate" is not an invitation for coitus, it's a statement of exasperation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the two days worth of edits by this IP account. It's on a vandalism tear. Every edit has been reverted as vandalism, either by a bot or a live editor. The GRG-related and occasionally vulgar edit sumaries show this to be part of a campaign. There's an ArbCom case and bans in place about topics covered by GRG. (GRG stands for Gerontology Research Group). Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"The GRG-related and occasionally vulgar edit sumaries show this to be part of a campaign. There's an ArbCom case and bans in place about topics covered by GRG. (GRG stands for Gerontology Research Group).'' David in DC, this past summer, I have been busy away from Misplaced Pages, but to let you know, I am now an official GRG (Gerontology Research Group) correspondent as of last month. I was provided this material about your smearing comments. I don't know what kind of internal campaign is going on but please do not include the official group, Gerontology Research Group, into the mix. It is clear that you are implying that GRG is involved in this so-called campaign. That behavior from you will not be tolerated. The ArbCom case you are referencing about did not have "bans in place about topics covered by GRG". That is slander right off the bat as it's utterly untrue. The ArbCom case only addressed the suite of longevity articles themselves and the principal editors involved; nothing explicitly saying that there are "bans in place about topics covered by GRG". I have no choice but, be forewarned, any further allegations about GRG itself by you will be met with taking action at Arbitration Enforcement, up to including the recommendation that you be either topic-banned in longevity articles or be banned from Misplaced Pages. Sorry for the strong response. Regards, CalvinTy 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked for disruptive editing. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to my talk page

Please review this. edit. It's part of a campaign I mention in the ANI request directly above this one. David in DC (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Solved by NW in thread above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Shukur92

Shukur92 (talk · contribs) has made some 25 edits today which have a political agenda related to the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. I have reverted all of them. Recommend a 24h block and to refer him to wherever we discuss this issue. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

IP 31.171.20.22 seems to be related to this, and is perhaps the same user. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup work needed, possible sockpuppetry

I stumbled across the work of new users Where R U? (talk · contribs) and Mademoiselle-Utopiste (talk · contribs) today, both of which are busy renaming articles about Franche-Comté‎ to "Free County", apparently without any previous discussion. Some articles have caught editor's watchlists and have been moved back, but there is still a lot of work to do. The fact that both these users started editing recently and jumped immediately into these actions seems fishy to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's not good. All of it needs to be reverted: such drastic changes require verification and certainly consensus. I'm relatively new at this job, and I'd like to hear from other admins, but I think both should be blocked at least temporarily for the suspicion of sockpuppetry and enacting serious changes without consensus. Other admins? Do we push the button here? I'm going to go and revert some more. Thank you Andrwsc. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll AGF and guess that it's an editor arriving here from fr.wiki, perhaps. I'd wait for a response on one of those talk pages before blocking. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the Mademoiselle as a sock of Where R U: it quacks like a duck in a half a dozen languages, maternelle and paternelle. I am not going to block Where R U right now, though they probably deserve one, because I want to give them a chance to weigh in here. Between Andrwsc, another editor, and myself I think we've undone the damage. I am waiting to see now--if Where R U (or a sock) returns and does the same stuff, I guess we'll have to block and move protect, and at that point we can certainly block them all. I am curious though as to what Where R U might bring up as a defense--I think I know what to expect, but I love surprises. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an IP 82.250.52.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to add to the mix, too. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't CheckUser be a good idea to see if there's any more ducks in the pond? WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) The timing suggests very strongly that the two accounts are sockpuppets of each other. Also, on the French Misplaced Pages, User:Where R U? (but not User:Mademoiselle-Utopiste) has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. I suggest checkuser attention (also taking into account the apparent connection to Roo-70 (talk · contribs)), followed by a report to the French Misplaced Pages.
• Given the disruption caused by such extensive moving, I suggest an immediate ban on controversial page moves and on moving more than 1 article per day, for both editors. Hans Adler 16:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good call, Hans--holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Faux-nez". I love that expresseion. Deli nk (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Where R U?. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support a ban of moving controversial pages, and moving only one page per day. Phearson (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility on Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) by Uafausti (talk · contribs)

Since this is a mixed bag of problems, I wasn't sure where to take it. So I stumbled into a mess doing some recent changes patrolling (when don't I). Apologies in advance for the length of this; I'm attempting to be very clear as I've had some problems with that recently. Since I don't actually follow the article in question, I may have some of the backstory on this off.

First I saw this personal attack and then I found the round of edits that are the source of Uafausti's ire. Apparently, on the album page, there has been some contention about the track list: media outlets are reporting (possibly) incorrect information and fans of the band are getting different info from other sources. I got the impression that their info is probably coming from places that wouldn't meet the RS policy but I'm not certain. Scanning the talk page I saw that the consensus has been to just leave the track list as it is and update accordingly if it turns out to be incorrect. The most recent source is a screenshot of a tracklist in iTunes. At first this was entered without any context but it's now been sourced to a Facebook post by a member of the band. I know we can use info from confirmed Twitter accounts from my work on film articles but I'm not sure about Facebook. In any event the article has been semi-protected recently to prevent the addition of this information, until a major music related media outlet picks it up or discredits it and encourage discussion of the issue.

So then we get back to Uafausti. As you can see from the page history, there has been edit warring over the information despite attempts to direct editors to the talk page. The actual edit (most recent diff as of my typing this) the user is making has problems beyond the factual information in terms of site wide MOS standards (capitalization, links instead of refs). Of course that could be cleaned up, if the content weren't a problem, and based on the talk page, it seems to be.

Uafausti, after a few more reverts, did finally go to the talk page, but with more personal attacks and very little helpful conversation (bonus points for logic fallacies and potentially incorrect inferences). So here I am. Is it a content dispute; maybe the source is fine? Edit Warring? Incivility? All of the above and something I haven't thought of? Beats me. I think I should stop doing recent changes, though. I always walk into the veritable shit storm, if you'll pardon the expression. Millahnna (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved, and I might be able to help give some background info. This is an upcoming album by a very popular group, and there's been a lot of speculation about it ever since it was first announced, with information changing weekly (if not daily) and sources coming in from all angles, some of the decent (WP:RS) variety and other of the bottom-of-the-barrel (Twitter, forums, etc) variety. A small handful of editors have done a lot to weed out the speculation and poor sources and keep the article in decent shape as it develops. The latest source of contention is the track listing: The one currently presented in the article was reported by several reliable sources (including Allmusic and Alternative Press) about 2 weeks ago. Evidently the original source for these reports was this document from Universal Music Group, the publisher and parent company of the record label. Apparently the bassist (Mark Hoppus) said on Twitter that it wasn't finalized yet, so we had a flurry of IPs coming in removing the track listing and the sources. Recently Hoppus posted a screenshot of an itunes playlist to his Facebook and Google+ accounts showing what might be a track list, however there's no caption or announcement confirming that it is. So again we have a flurry of IPs and SPAs changing the track listing, removing the third-party sources, and claiming this image as a source. A talk page discussion was started, and the consensus seems to be either to leave it as it was with the third-party sources or to simply remove the whole thing since there is so much contention and possibly conflicting sources. In the meantime the article was semi-protected to help prevent the IP and SPA disruption. However, Uafausti doesn't seem interested in discussion and has descended into edit-warring, incivility, and personal attacks (, , , ). I've been involved up to this point but am now choosing to step aside, having allowed myself to be drawn into edit wars before and not wishing to repeat that mistake. I think the talk page discussion supports either sticking to the third-party sources or leave the track list out entirely, but I'll leave it up to the community to decide.. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire track list should be removed until the album is released, since it violates WP:CRYSTAL, point 5. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've hidden it inside comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems so obvious now that you've done it. Heh. Thanks Ken. Millahnna (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning about civility/personal attacks on his talk page. I was tempted to just block right away, but it has been ten hours since his last edit, so let's see if he comes back and continues or changes his attitude (I'm probably assuming too much good faith here, but I'm a kind fellow...). Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and issue an actual block without any objection from me! either way (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Right about the time I posted this he stopped editing (just before I dropped him the ANI notice I think). Maybe he walked away and counted to 10. Thanks for helping me out with my unfortunate tendency to find bouts of weirdness that I find hard to categorize. Maybe I should call them "poop tornadoes" in polite company? Millahnna (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the extreme irony in that he edited Friendship a couple of years ago, and now has sunk to the massive WP:NPA violations noted above? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's back. Same revert. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Either way has blocked for one month after that revert. -- Atama頭 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

I started a discussion at Talk:Brandon Marshall regarding the placement of images within the article. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uploaded one of the images, was in disagreement with me about whether an image of Marshall in his current team article, though it is bad quality, should be in the infobox. The consensus appeared to be going against Chris, so he conceded defeat by making the changes per consensus and posted an irrelevant and highly inappropriate response, "I will not tolerate this racism from all of you. I removed the comment as being a violation of WP:TPG (but keyed in the wrong acronym later, and thus it appeared a redlink). He restored his comment, and removed again, threatening to take him here if he continued. I received this edit summary in reply: "don't be such a fucking asshole". In February, Chris was blocked for one month for making personal attacks and he will no doubt attempt to attack me here in this venue as he did the last go-around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseless charges of racism are perhaps the most damaging type of personal attacks. IMHO at minimum the comment needs to be retracted promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The racism assertion was made purely for disruptive reasons, FWIW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked again. Since the last one was for a month, this one is longer--three months. As much as it pains me to block a long-time contributor, such charges and the accompanying edit summary are unacceptable. I gladly invite review. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I support this block, especially in light of this response. either way (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm a bit embarrassed about that; besides, I can't blame him for his response. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User fails to respond to messages

Azumanga1 (talk · contribs) nevers responds to messages in her user talk page. Should an admin block her on not? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block the user indefinitely with email and talkpage disabled for not responding to her messages. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. You can't be serious? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What? She never responds. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to block someone... Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what they're not responding to. This is a community and users need to communicate. If a user refuses to communicate it can cause issues. Even if their edits aren't necessarily terribly disruptive, if they ignore all attempts by anyone to communicate with them, that in itself can be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And after having a quick look, that doesn't seem to be the case here, they've responded to people in the past.. I'd question NYmets here. They go to their page to offer them being nominated for adminship, and when the person doesn't answer, they come here insisting they be blocked and have their talk page locked.. were there some serious editing concern they weren't addressing that is one thing, but in this case, perhaps we need to have a look at NYmets edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of response are you looking for from this editor? Quinn 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I notified the editor this is directed toward, as I didn't see where that had been done. Quinn 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards