Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravenswing (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 26 February 2012 (→Bad Misplaced Pages habits hurt editing!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

User:Dickmojo on Talk:Acupuncture

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

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

There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Acupuncture regarding sourcing. Dickmojo has recently been delving into less than productive behavior, including personal attacks (1, 2, 3) and tendentious editing (see IDHT behavior on talk page). I believe this is leading to the discussion being unnecessarily heated, and after repeated warnings (PA, EW, blanking, notforum, TE, CIVIL, PA), is unlikely to improve. I think a short block or topic ban is in order to prevent future disruption. See also DRN for more info, particularly the first post by Famousdog. Notifying involved users now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish Jess, you are trying to suppress dissent. I am simply trying to inject the appropriate perspective into the debate at that page, which is dominated by sceptics who want to make the article sound like its a carbon copy of one of those "Quackbuster" websites, and that POV would NOT be suitable for an encyclopedia on a topic of such monumental historical and cultural significance as acupuncture.Dickmojo (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Dickmojo for 36 hours for repeated personal attacks. was so blatant that retracted or not I feel it was blockable, especially given the pattern shown with the other two diffs User:Mann jess provided. Ks0stm 06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Dickmojo has posted an unblock request on his talk page. As I'm headed to bed here in a few minutes I'll delegate to the community as to whether to grant the unblock request or not...I've got no problem with him being released from his block early if consensus is to unblock. Ks0stm 07:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I support to unblock him earlier. Seems to me he learned his lesson (about the personal attacks. Not sure if he entirely understood the concept of reliable sources). --Mallexikon (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

His understanding of WP policy seems to have significantly improved of late. He has made good suggestions and is still being treated like a leper.

However, in spite of the recent DRN, he crossed the line again. Will the ban help him maintain a helpful disposition on the talk page? I do not know and 18 hours isn't an unreasonably long time.

I suspect mediation would work a lot better than a big stick and preferably mediation on equal terms.

Is this the right place for it? Promises are needed from both sides, not just because of the hostility but there are a few editors who show an equal CoI to Dickmojo and who are collectively more disruptive than him. Mindjuicer (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While Dickmojo claims he will refrain from further personal attacks, he obviously still intends to continue his advocacy. That's been a large part of the problem, not just the attacks. The advocacy, minus the attacks, would still be wrong. He's here to right great wrongs, and that's not our purpose here. I think the block should run its course, and a reblock be effected at the slightest hint of renewed advocacy, or continuation of beating the poor dead horse (that one poor source MUST be included). The horse needs rest, and the source doesn't need to be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is resposted from DR in response to this comment by DM:

Above in Dickmojo's first statement he writes "Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to." DM, are you aware of our conflict of interest guidelines that strongly discourage you from being involved with acupuncture articles? Your statement indicates to me that your goal at WP is not overall improvement of the pedia, but rather to push a POV that is dear to you. It also indicates that you cannot edit the article dispassionately. Misplaced Pages is not a place to defend your profession nor a venue in which to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the crux of the issue here is that you see things from a POV that is not mainstream, and so to you the mainstream sounds extreme. Nformation 09:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is DM's response. I am going to sleep so I will comment upon it tomorrow, but I wanted to give uninvolved ediotrs a channge to weigh in.

I would be glad to, Noformation. A conflict of interest is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages". The aims of Misplaced Pages is to produce a "neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". My position is that editors from the rational-skeptic wikiproject and their ilk are NOT neutral in this subject, and in fact are incapable of being neutral because they do not have any hands on empirical experience with acupuncture, no specialist dedicated learning in it, have not taken the time to grapple with the unique and complex conceptual paradigm that contextualizes it, and thus their knowledge of it is incomplete and immature, and they are ill-equiped to provide a full, rounded, mature and neutral synthesis of the information available on this topic.

Now, as for myself, I will tell it straight, I work 12~15 hours per week in acupuncture practice, earning $35 per hour. Acupuncture practice is not my main source of income, in fact my only purpose for practicing acupuncture is to deepen my understanding of the art and sharpen my skills in it. It requires 10,000 hours of purposeful practice to become a master of any discipline, and one day I aim to achieve mastery in this discipline.

I refute the suggestion that those people who are most qualified, have the most experience, have done the most study, and are most knowledgeable and passionate about this subject should be excluded from editing on the grounds of COI. In fact these are the ones whose input is most valuable, far more valuable than the input of ivory-tower rational skeptics who only bother to attempt to understand acupuncture through a theoretical, critical and dismissive point of view. In fact, considering the tone of most editors on the acupuncture talk page, which emulates the tone of those "Quackwatch" websites that proliferate on the web these days, and considering their devoted following of Edzard Ernst and their elevation of his work as the number 1 source on the page (literally), and their transparent agenda of "de-bunking" the "pseudo-science" they consider acupuncture to be, it rather seems to an objective observer that is those editors who are "advancing outside interests" rather than being neutral, and thus they in breach of COI, as opposed to I.Dickmojo (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to read about the problems with the article and the editors at DR, and I found it to be less than illuminating. However, my sense there and here is that Dick should not be editing the article. Simplistically, there are two kinds of expert editors at Misplaced Pages, those whose expertise and understanding of Misplaced Pages policies improve articles, and those whose expertise and lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policies disrupt articles. Dick appears to be one of the latter. All that said, I realize the block is not for his edits per se but for his personal attacks, so my judgment as to his WP:COMPETENCE may not be relevant to whether he should be unblocked. But even if he can restrain himself from personally attacking other editors (which, unfortunately, comes from his "passion"), I fear his edits will continue to be problematic. One last thing. So-called experts in a particular field often disagree, thus, whatever Dick's knowledge of acupuncture gained from his practice and studies, he doesn't necessarily speak for all acupuncturists.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment about a broader issue here. I think it is absolutely the wrong thing to discourage editors with extensive real life experience of the subject from editing based on COI. They should be considered an asset due to their (presumed) access and approach to finding good sources. Conversely, such editors should also avoid voicing their expertise in the course of disputes about content. A good middle ground is to outline the extent of their knowledge-base on their talk page, but let other editors point to their knowledge of a subject, when appropriate, as something to consider, rather than bringing it up themselves. Doing so only adds heat to discussions, and gives the (granted, sometimes unintentional) impression that they somehow have more of a right to decide content that other editors. In a nutshell, use your expertise, but don't flaunt it. (Is ] an essay? It should be.) Quinn 19:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not with that name but Expert editors is pretty close. Nobody Ent 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been absent from WP for over 24 hours and I'm disappointed to see that Dickmojo has managed to call me a racist and a xenophobe again in the meantime (at this point, I'd just like to clarify that the comment I made - "put up or shut up" - that so enraged Dickmojo was an attempt to explain the scientific method and wikipedia policy, not tell Dickmojo to shut up). I have been appalled and hurt by Dick's incessant attacks, accusations and absolute intransigence (to date the worst I have ever seen on WP - and I was involved in the Seeyou debacle back in 2009). I have to say that I'm happy that a block has finally been instated and I see no reason to cancel the block earlier than the (IMHO) rather lenient 36 hours. In other news, I too disagree with Noformation's focus on conflict-of-interest (sorry) and would much rather that practicing acupuncturists contributed a bit more to this article (gosh, I'm such a "zealot" and I'm so "closed-minded") however, Dickmojo simply has not done so in a constructive, collaborative and civil fashion. He has turned the talk page into a warzone because his edits have been reverted on entirely reasonable grounds (WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:V, and many others...)

I would also like to express my concern about Mindjuicer's support of Dickmojo throughout this process since I have found him (Mindjuicer) to be guilty of many of the same breaches of policy and the same sort of intransigence and citation-free editing that has got Dickmojo blocked... and now it seems he's adding personal attacks to his repertoire over on the Emotional Freedom Techniques article. Much of his language ("zealots", etc) is very similar to Dickmojo's, he frequently makes ad hominen accusations without backing them up with evidence or diffs (see his comments on COI and disruptive editing by "a few editors" above. Really? Which editors? When? How?) and I have been harbouring a suspicion that I'm just going to flatly state now that they are a sharing the same sock-drawer or shelf in the fridge. Can we have a Checkuser please? Famousdog (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, investigate away. You'll notice Famousdog did not justify any of his accusations except my response to being trolled by him on the EFT talkpage. His example on this topic of an ad hominem is laughable, as is his interpretation of my comment as "support of Dickmojo". --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I second the concerns about Mindjuicer. I see very little difference between the two, both as to POV, blatant advocacy, and personal attacks. The main difference at the moment is that Mindjuicer isn't blocked and is carrying on the battleground mentality that they both had before Dickmojo's block, and is thus acting as an enabler and encourager of Dickmojo's behavior. Actually I'm not even sure who is copying whom, since Mindjuicer has been doing this for some time before I became aware of Dickmojo. We need a CU/SPI, a lengthening of Dickmojo's block, and a block for Mindjuicer. When they get off their blocks, we need topic bans based on Discretionary Sanctions. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess anyone who doesn't share your point of view looks the same huh? Again no justification of accusations. This is harassment now. Do your SPI -- they will continue to use this ad homimen against me if you don't.

Note how other users reacted the last time Brangifer used ad hominems against me . --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with acupuncturists editing the article per se, the problem starts when an acupuncturist puts his aims above those of the project. Clearly there is an argument to be made that someone who has studied acupuncture would be well equipped to edit the article, I just don't think that DM and MJ fit into that category because they are clearly here to push an agenda. MJ's edits in 2007 were broad but since 2008 almost all edits have been on either acupuncture or Emotional Freedom Techniques, which is related. DM exclusively edits acupuncture. Both editors engage in personal attacks; MJ yesterday posted a personal attack on FamousDog here (not sure if this had been posted already) and should be blocked on that alone. Both editors carry a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and both suffer from some severe WP:IDHT syndrome. I concur with the need for a topic ban but I'm not sure if an SPI is necessary and I don't think it's going to turn up anything. Nformation 00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree and have stricken the request for a CU/SPI. Otherwise their behavior is enough for compliance with the other requests. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, no justification for accusations bar the exact same one I already explained. Pure harrassment. And you wonder why I stand up for Dickmojo.

There is one other editor who would like me banned from acupuncture purely because I oppose their POV. Had I not posted this, I would have little doubt he'd turn up and call for a topic ban. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Dickmojo's block has expired, so we need to be alert. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Dickmojo is back and up to his old tricks. Can we get a permanent ban on him and his buddy Mindjuicer - I'm ****ing sick of this. Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dickmojo's comment is a rather absurd one indicative of the problem since it would require a radical reinterpretation of the conclusions of nearly every study on acupuncture. For instance, his comment of:

Acupuncture HAS been proven effective in every single study ever conducted. The criticism that fanatic skeptics extremists have of it is that, while the difference between acupuncture and no treatment is very very large in every case, the difference between acupuncture and so-called "sham" acupuncture is small, sometimes even clinically insignificant.

But this phenomenon makes total sense when we take into account the fact that this "sham" acupuncture is not analogous to placebo at all, but in fact is strikingly similar to a very authentic traditional style of Japanese acupuncture (shallow needle insertion/non-penetration, alternate acupoint and meridian location, etc) that has been in common use for centuries are is still widely practiced to this very day.

The fact is, acupuncture is effective, and its silly to even try to test it against a placebo in the first place, because its not a pill or a drug or a substance that lends itself to such methodology.

would suggest that the following conclusion:

would be used to claim acupuncture is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. I think this is pretty clearly against our policy on original research. The statement is so incredibly at odds to what is considered an acceptable use of references, that I would indeed question whether Dickmojo could effectively edit the acupuncture page in line with our core content policies. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

DM is back fresh from his block with more thinly veiled accusations of racism. Nformation 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusations that several editors have pointed out are actually founded in Dickmojo's paranoia, not reality. Famousdog (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

When his ignorance is revealed, Dickmojo moves the goalposts and continues to accuse editors of discrimination. I would like to request a indefinite ban on Dickmojo. He is POV-pushing on the article, trolling and foruming on the talk page, hurling unfounded accusations at other editors in EXTREME bad faith and generally showing complete and utter contempt for Misplaced Pages and his fellow editors. Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Dickmojo for two weeks for continuing to argue that other users are either racist or deliberately using a racist term. When they are not. Not even a little bit. If someone talks some sense into him before the two weeks is up, please feel free to unblock, unless the community has decided to ban him in the meantime. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion - Dickmojo

• Support a topic ban for Dickmojo, similar to the one for Mindjuicer (see thread below for Mindjuicer's topic ban). Dickmojo is guilty of similar and much worse behavior. It would be totally unfair to only topic ban Mindjuicer. The topic ban can be effectuated immediately while the 2 week block is in place. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. DM is still indicating on his talk page that he doesn't understand the reason for his block, and plans to continue his problematic behavior. He needs to edit constructively in non-contentious areas first, before he's able to contribute collaboratively to a tricky subject with which he shares a serious COI.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban There are neutral editors on the page who edit without disruption, User:Mallexikon for instance has done a lot of work over the past day or so. DM is here for advocacy and advocacy alone and doesn't seem to be able to fit into the collaborative WP culture. Severe persecution complex, inability to get the point, etc. Nformation 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While I see little or no support for Dickmojo's editing style, and nobody opposing a topic ban, I don't see sufficient numbers supporting a topic ban for the will of the community to be clear. I'm going to leave this 24 hours and if there's little or no change, will close this discussion but leave a strong and final warning on Dickmojo's talk page. I'm leaving a similar post on the Mindjuicer discussion below. Kim Dent-Brown 23:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Dick's edits, substantively and stylistically, are far more disruptive than constructive. He needs to learn how to contribute in a less aggressive, less holier-than-thou manner. If he wishes, after a ban is in place, he can demonstrate that he can contribute productively in other areas of Misplaced Pages rather than ones where his non-neutrality causes him to thumb his nose at Wikpedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. At some point we have to limit the amount of damage any one user is doing, not only to articles, but to the attitude and energy of good editors trying to edit and improve the project. Yobol (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Scanning Talk:Acupuncture shows that Dickmojo does not understand the procedures that apply to articles or talk pages. For example, standard comments are described as showing a "closed-minded, arrogoant, hate-filled attitude" (diff). An expert on acupuncture might bring useful information to the article, but they need to be capable of understanding advice from experienced editors about the standard practices of Misplaced Pages (V, NPOV). Time spent in other topics would be useful to aid an understanding of those standard practices. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - WP:AGF only goes so far. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. "Assume good faith" does not, contrary to the curious belief of some, automatically include "... even when bad faith is conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated." Passionate advocacy in defense of a COI should always be a red flag on Misplaced Pages, and Dick is a poster child for why it needs to be. Ravenswing 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - continued editing in & around this topic will be disruptive & detrimental. GiantSnowman 16:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks/Mindjuicer

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

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

While it is clear that passions are inflamed, personal attacks are not acceptable. Starting with numerous edits discussing editors rather than edits, it soon progressed to outright personal attacks.

A final NPA warning was not well received, but it seemed to have helped some. Then back to discussing editors and personal attacks. Don't add warnings, ze doesn't want them.

Gee, though, it's nice that ze noted that Famousdog, as it turns out, isn't "one of the much less polite zealots" and that many of the attacks aren't naming names. Additionally, I guess it's nice to allow that rather than being paranoid, an editor might simply be "deliberately creating this noise to achieve his own ends". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I forgot one. This is now the full list of people who want me banned from acupuncture purely because I oppose their POV.

First list, first one is not a personal attack!?

Neither is the second one.

Third one is from two months ago and is frankly accurate.

Fourth, guess you could describe that as a very weak personal attack if you're desperate.

Fifth, sixth and seventh is my own talk page where I was being harrassed by the guy who started this section.

Eight is where I returned the compliment.

Ninth is meant to be what exactly?!?

Tenth and eleventh are again my own talk page.

Twelth was a case of mistaken identity which I apologised for.

Notice how all of these are from months ago when I was getting much worse thrown at me. How desperate are they to :get me removed?

From the second list, first one is my own talk page!?

Second one isn't a personal attack

Third one is the one I explained earlier.

Fourth one is not a personal attack but a genuine concern at another editor who I've formally warned.

Fifth is the exact same link from the end of the last list. ----Mindjuicer (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here. Mindjuicer, you do not totally "own" your talk page. Every single part of Misplaced Pages requires the promotion and preservation of a collaborative atmosphere. "No personal attacks" applies to all of Misplaced Pages, including your talk page and your edit summaries (some of them are real doozies!). You have no right to treat other editors like shit, just because it's your talk page. Your battlefield attitude really shines clearest there, and reveals that your basic modus operandi and motivation here is to defend your profession and acupuncture, and somewhere beyond the far distant horizon (we haven't seen much of it at all) to improve Misplaced Pages. Your attitude isn't the least bit constructive.

Your persecution complex also demonstrates an extreme degree of "I didn't hear that". You keep saying that others are "attacking" you because they don't like your POV. That's BS. Somehow everyone else is wrong and you are "neutral"?!! Any negative responses you get are only because of the way you wave, promote, distastefully defend, and advocate your POV. The responses are about your violations of myriad policies, guidelines, and behavioral codes we have here. If you edited and made comments using RS and in a collaborative and friendly manner, we wouldn't be here at all. The fact we are even here reveals there's something dreadfully wrong with your attitude. Get real. Your modus operandi is what's gotten you here, not your POV. (We've had other editors who were pro-quackery, pro-acupuncture, pro-chiropractic, who did quite well here, and were welcomed. They actually did their cause good and contributed much good content.) You simply aren't suited to this environment and it's about time your disruption was stopped. A topic ban is probably the only way that can be accomplished. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And still no evidence to back up your accusations.

Yes you would love that topic ban wouldn't you. Not a block or a permanent ban, but a topic ban. No surprises there then.

But aren't you a hypocrite after the way you threatened me and another user if we didn't behave in some mostly unspecified way you demanded? --Mindjuicer (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence? That's not my reading of the lists of diffs up there. And I'd like to put my hand up in favour of a block or a permanent ban. You are dragging WP into the gutter and should not be allowed to continue to do so on any page. Famousdog (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The first set of links spans 13 December 2011 to 3 February 2012. Yes, 13 December is (barely) months ago. Your personal attacks are part of roughly 2.5 months of editing.

Yes, the first one on the second list is an edit to your user page. Immediately after removing two of my warnings to you (for unsourced additions and a personal attack) along with your replies (where I am a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic") you decided to update your user page with a screed against "petty zealotry. Zealots who spend the most time driving away competing editors, threatening them on their user pages, instareverting edits, recruiting other zealots and studying the arcane WP guideline structure & misrepresenting it". Even with my I.Q., I "got" it.

The second one "isn't a personal attack". Interesting that you single out one example out of 23. Are you agreeing the other 22 are? :) Yeah, another attack at the "zealots" who "instareverted" your edit is mild compared to the others, but it's part of the pattern.

You explained the third one? Really? You explained how our I.Q.s have something to do with the disputed content? I must admit, with my I.Q., I missed it.

"You take a lot of space and barely comprehensible language to state pretty much nothing. Oh and a strawman at the end." is "genuine concern"?!?! Please don't show your concern for me.

Yes, you "apologized" for saying the editor was "purposefully trying to derail the debate" by allowing that the editor was not "one of the much less polite zealots". You're too kind!

Again, "months ago"? Yeah, 4 of the personal attacks were from mid-December 2011 (just barely "months ago") 1 was from 31 January 2012. The remaining 18 are from this month. Don't believe me? (Why should you, I'm a petty zealot, dumbass and control freak.) Go ahead and check. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response is weak and you know it.

So now I have a question for you. How did you know about this ANI since you were not informed of it? --Mindjuicer (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming you did not make personal attacks, you'll need to explain to me how calling me a petty zealot, dumbass, control freak is not a personal attack.

How did I find this discussion? I'm watching your talk page, saw your latest attacks, came here to report the attacks and found this discussion. A real petty zealot, dumbass, control freak kinda move, right?

I'm suggesting a brief block (for starters) and/or a topic ban for Mindjuicer. If, however, Mindjuicer really doesn't the edits as personal attacks, we're going to need something more. How about it, Mindjuicer: do you think calling me a "smug, Republican anti-scientist", a "dumbass", "a smug Republican control freak" and "pathetic" constitute personal attacks? - SummerPhD (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(I now see that I was responding to a fraction of Mindjuicer's comments. Whatever, take my comments with a grain of petty zealot, dumbass, control freak salt. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Related to that last diff, as I say in a comment I am not threatening to block MindJuicer, I'm not an admin. I'm pointing out that continuing to POV-push, drop insults and demand sweeping changes could result in a block (and also pointing out, again, that the lead already includes the indications for which acupuncture has been found effective). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One again no evidence submitted. This counts as an adhominem attack. Which article did I demand sweeping changes for? --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem? Yeah, I guess discussing charges against you would be against you. Yeah, um, we're trying to dispute your claim that you didn't make personal attacks by, um, pointing out that you made personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I refer once again to the section where Brangifer first tried to get me banned. --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of pretty poor behaviour from Mindjuicer here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is what to do about it. Topic ban? Block? What do we want done? I would support a topic ban from acupuncture, broadly construed, for 3 months to give him/her some time to reflect on their behavior, with a swift rebanning if WP:TE continued after expiration. Nformation 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say a short block (say 24-48 hours) would be sensible if the bad behaviour continues. I've just given them a warning - and I'm not involved - so hopefully that will be taken seriously, otherwise I'll be requesting a block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I looked at your warning and it appears to be directed at Famousdog because of the placement. I didn't want to refactor it so I'm just letting you know. Nformation 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering who that was aimed at! Could you clarify Eraserhead? Famousdog (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban Discussion - Mindjuicer

Why the heck is it taking so long to ban Mindjuicer??? - he's surely demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he's a disruptive and unconstructive influence on WP and is still treating Talk:Acupuncture and now Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming like a WP:BATTLEGROUND going over the same dead horse arguments that we've had with him time and time again. Come on. Can we please have a ruling??? Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support some kind of intervention, but I'm not sure what's best (and what exactly is being proposed here?). Have taken the EFT article off my watchlist because it became too toxic and stressful when mindjuicer arrived. Can't we all just get along? bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support something too. Make a proposal and see if it passes? Also, I think we should consider filing a motion to amend Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist to include acupuncture/EFT/etc as was done for homeopathy. We suffer from many of the same problems on this page and being able to file at WP:AE would make dealing with situations like this a lot easier. Nformation 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support a long-term (3 months +) topic ban on acupuncture and associated articles, or indeed, all alternative medicine and psychotherapy articles. More accusations of "stalking" against myself and Brangifer and groundless accusations of "CoI" against me, the reasons for which are frankly opaque, have appeared in the last 24 hours. Another accusation of stalking and CoI on my talk page - no evidence provided short of a link to this thread. COME ON! This editor is a persistent nuisance who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for Misplaced Pages or other editors. This is surely a no-brainer. Famousdog (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

More pointless aggravation on my talk page and continuing to accuse me of COI in a discussion that had been previously closed for breaching WP:FORUM. Ban. Now, please. Famousdog (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• (As an involved admin/editor...) I think there's more than enough evidence of combativeness, disregard for site policy, and generally poor conduct to ban Mindjuicer from alternative-medicine-related articles, at a bare minimum. But let's recognize that Misplaced Pages's processes aren't particularly effective at dealing with abrasive single-purpose agenda accounts and assume that's not going to happen. I think the best way to go here is summarized in WP:SHUN. MastCell  18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban applying to all alternatives to medicine articles. As an involved petty zealot, dumbass, control freak, I'd suggest that a topic ban allows for the chance (though it may be slim) that some of that "juice" might be put to productive use elsewhere. If Mindjuicer decides to simply leave or later requires a full-blown stoning, well, them's the breaks. Mindjuicer for hir part, apparently labors under the notion that ze has done nothing wrong. A topic ban allows for the chance of correctable confusion. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on alternative medicine, broadly construed. I've been having similar problems with MJ as the editors above, and have already taken to shunning most of his WP:IDHT behavior; I assume I'm not alone. MJ recently responded by invoking WP:SILENCE and enacting his changes anyway. I think a topic ban is best here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we have 5 supports for some kind of action and no opposes, can an admin please close this and impose what ever sanctions have gained consensus? Nformation 00:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I think the relevant points have been made quite well, and I concur. This seems to be the right direction to go, and it should stop the worst disruption. When MJ has gotten more experience editing other articles and learning the culture here, maybe the ban can be lifted in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• While this isn't the right thread, I support a similar topic ban for Dickmojo because of similar, and much worse behavior. That topic ban can be effectuated immediately while the 2 week block is in place. It would be totally unfair to only topic ban Mindjuicer. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While I see little or no support for Mindjuicer's editing style, and nobody opposing a topic ban, I don't see sufficient numbers supporting a topic ban for the will of the community to be clear. I'm going to leave this 24 hours and if there's little or no change, will close this discussion but leave a strong and final warning on Mindjuicer's talk page. I'm leaving a similar post on the Dickmojo discussion above. Kim Dent-Brown 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've definitely seen topic bans enforced with this much support in the past. The problem with situations like this is that the WP:TE and disregard for policy takes place over many months and so it's a lot to expect for editors at AN/I to go through thousands of words of discussion to make a decision. When 8 editors believe in good faith and report that there are serious POV and WP:DE concerns (9 if Mastcell is counted, but he didn't explicitly !vote) at a page and no one bothers opposing the topic ban it's probably a good indicator that intervention is necessary. There really is no set number of people needed to topic ban someone because, as you know, consensus is not a vote. The arguments presented against MJ and DM should be evaluated on their merits and these users topic banned if it's good for the encyclopedia; the number of "votes" should be a far secondary consideration. Nformation 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative project. I understand that sometimes we say things we shouldn't out of frustration or tiredness or whatever, but repetitive behavior of that kind should not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It is time that we make it clear that tendentious editing is not appropriate, and that we value the time, energy, and contributions of good editors, rather than trying to coddle tendentious ones, and in the process, suck up the time and resources from good editors that could be used to improve the project. Yobol (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on both Mindjuicer and Dickmojo as proposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alternative medicine topics. Many of the above diffs do not show extreme atacks, but they do show an inappropriate battleground attitude that is confirmed by reviewing the history of User talk:Mindjuicer. The article talk pages show a non-collaborative attitude with pointed commentary that cannot help NPOV article development. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (at least): I am desperately unimpressed with Mindjuicer's assertion that his repeated and gratuitous insults are somehow okay if they're on his talk page ... which of course they're not, what with edit summaries such as "I'm done with those cretins" or "Thought I would come and spam your talk page like you did mine - Not gonna waste my time saying anything of interest to you. Just cretinous irrelevent WP:political controlfreakery like you did." Paired with his open and repeated contempt for warnings about his behavior, it is plain that he is no asset to the encyclopedia, and it is my longstanding experience that editors like him very, very seldom have "OMG I've been so horribly mean to everyone!" epiphanies. Ravenswing 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and administrator abuse: Stanislaw Burzynski

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

For some reason there has been some bickering wrt the Stanislaw Burzynski article. The article as it stands is not particularly NPOV and that is a significant problem given that it is a BLP. I recently tried to make one revision in the lead for neutrality, specifically changing

There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer ...

which is a very sweeping generalization and borders on a condemnation of the subject. I modified it to read

According to the National Institutes of Health, there is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer ...

which is a necessary qualification. For whatever reason a couple of users continue to revert this claiming that, because more than one authority has stated this, no qualification is necessary (mind you the source cited in the ref actually only mentions the NIH; no other RS citations have even been provided). Regardless, because the whole matter is controversial and because this is a BLP, it is essential that any such criticisms be attributed to specific sources in the text. Not providing a source, regardless of the refs, asserts that the statement is absolute fact accepted by all experts on the subject (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing and specifying biased statements). When criticizing a person it is almost never appropriate to make such an absolute statement, and certainly not when the criticisms themselves are a subject of controversy. For whatever reason administrator NuclearWarfare has chosen to abuse his/her privileges to lock down the page to prevent the addition of the qualification. I don't know if this is a clique thing or what the reason for that might be. Regardless the changes are necessary and NuclearWarfare should be reprimanded.

Mind you, this one sentence is not the only problem with the article. I was simply trying to make a trivial improvement to try to bring it at least slightly closer to NPOV. Frankly it needs a rewrite.

--192.88.165.35 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. An additional observation: the change I made was quite harmless regardless of your particular position on the subject matter. The only logical reason to object to the qualification clause would be if one was intentionally trying to attack the subject.

Given the content of the rest of that paragraph, I don't think your claim of admin abuse stands up. The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer.... A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy". Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense", and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you try to talk to them about it? Also - I noticed you didn't notify NW of this post - I have done so. — Ched :  ?  23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this admin abuse, exactly? There's a whole stack of controversial editing coming from an IP hopping user, with lots of reverting going on. Seems like exactly the sort of thing that needs semi-protection. NuclearWarfare is uninvolved: no admin abuse there. And there's a discussion thread on the talk page about the issue. But IP hopping user doesn't seem interested in discussing it on the talk page, nor discussing it with NW, but rather jumps to ANI with an accusation of admin abuse. I can't help but think there's a reason for that... —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• This edit summary (admins-only, sorry) should explain basically everything on how much good faith we should extend to this block-evading sockpuppeteer. NW (Talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the latest block-evading sock of an indef-blocked registered account with an axe to grind against Fauci and NIH. Blocked 31 hours by Tcanens. They were previously harassing MastCell over HIV issues. See on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see the asserted admin abuse.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that this discussion is going to be sidelined for various reasons. I'll simply state for the record:

• Tom Morris asserts that NuclearWarfare was uninvolved and simply locked the page. First, this is untrue. NuclearWarfare did edit the text and did not stay neutral. Second, locking the page is only appropriate if there is an actual problem with abusive editing. Locking the page simply because of a disagreement is abuse of authority.
• Acroterion attempted to associate this discussion with some arbitrary discussion MastCell was having with somebody else. I see no connection between the IP address Acroterion is referring to and any IP address I have submitted from. So this was very obvious slander (a straw-man of sorts) to side-step the discussion.
• I looked back a little over the IP addresses that I have submitted from (shared IPs) and I don't see any indication of recent unscrupulous activity by any of the other users who have submitted from these IPs (certainly no indication of sockpuppetry). So NuclearWarfare's assertions would appear to be self-serving at best.
• In a broader scope, I have noticed that some administrators are increasingly using "sockpuppetry" and numerous other fabricated excuses to impose opinions contrary to WP policy. I realize that sockpuppetry is a real problem that WP has but it's a slippery slope when you start to use a common problem as an excuse for defamation.
• SarekOfVulcan's comments, in and of themselves, demonstrate a violation of NPOV. It is not for Misplaced Pages's editors (or adminstrators) to decide which viewpoint is correct. Quoting the NPOV policies:

Misplaced Pages articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.

Particularly with BLP articles, the text must avoid making assertions on anything where there is even a slight controversy. Rather they should simply state clearly the opinions of the experts and be clear about which experts those are (and again, simply attaching a ref does not meet that criterion). When dealing with BLPs anything less is unethical.

• I agree that I could have gone another step and tried to plead my case with NW before coming here. But with all due respect, given that NW was so quick to violate policy in more than one way I honestly had no reason to think that would accomplish anything. But if anyone wants to say I should have given him/her a chance to reverse his/her actions before registering a complaint, I'll acknowledge that this would have been kinder. I'll point out, though, that NW made no effort to start any sort of discussion on the matter.
• In general, though, this whole thread demonstrates why WP increasingly has difficulty attracting the quality editors that it once did. What's obvious here is that there is more interest here in protecting the interests of friends than actually trying to continue improving Misplaced Pages. And that sadly will be the encyclopedia's undoing.

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.34 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, Misplaced Pages has difficulty attracting and retaining quality editors because they get tired of dealing with single-purpose accounts interested in using this site's visibility to promote their agenda, rather than in creating a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell  19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Similar edits are being made by an IP at Antineoplaston‎. Is this the same person and if so can we reblock? Nformation 08:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's block-a-mole time. I think the block evasion clause applies, and it it doesn't because I misread the times, it's blatant POV pushing. Both are blockable. NW (Talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Malicious code again

Needs a quick block. This edit to our Wikileaks article cause a click anywhere on the page to open a page at 'milanova.com'.

Presumably this is a variation on the problems we had a few days back. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and 4im warning issued to user.  Frank  |  talk  18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the clearly-malicious intent, I'd have thought an immediate block was nercessary. We should probably revdel this too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that edit be oversighted as to prevent accidental access.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,308,610) 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RBI; garden-variety vandalism, in my opinion, but I don't object to more serious action.  Frank  |  talk  18:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

...which has now been taken.  Frank  |  talk  18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the links used in the earlier attacks were black-listed. Would that make sense here? Ravensfire (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I already have blocked the puppet, blacklisted the site, hidden the edits, and updated the abusefilters (which, by the way, stopped further attempts of this nature). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a technical fix to stop attacks like this. The edit filter and blacklists are not enough, if new instances keep appearing. It should be impossible to make an external link in WP other than as visible text clearly marked as a link. I'll put some thought into how to do this. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Same thing happening at our Julian Assange article (links to hard-core porn site) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the editor and applied revdel to the edit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated filter #56 (again). Please let me know if this type of vandalism shows up anywhere else.

On the same note, I don't even want to think about the variety of malicious code that vandals might think up once Misplaced Pages goes to Lua templates. (Cross-site scripting, session hijacking, buffer overflow exploits, cookie sniffing, and others come to mind.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we even allow "span" and "div" tags in Wikitext in the first place? --Carnildo (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To allow for a setup that wiki-markup doesn't support. My userspace has quite a few div tags.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,559,131) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To respond to Frank — RevDel is needed here for the safety of editors going through page histories, since someone might not realise that this was different from simple spamming or vandalism and end up going to that page by accident. If we had a way to make it accessible to all but only via a clickthrough, I'd call that appropriate, but since RevDel is the only way of requiring a clickthrough, I think it's the least-bad option. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support adding malicious exploits like this as an explicit criteria for using WP:REVDEL. It looks like RD3 basically covers it already though. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

watchdogs

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

Dear all, I do not know how you deal with personal defamations. Today I was editing an information about a case of manipulation on de:WP (see documentation). After some hours User:Estlandia made the following contribution. I went to the discussion page of this User and wrote the following, but received this reaction. This user wrote about me: ‘DE-wiki watchdogs like the ardent political POV pusher KarlV’. Is this the normal communication on en:WP? Would someone be so kind to advise this user for a better behavior? Thanks and regards. --KarlV 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact I would appreciate if neutral parties would take a look at the relevant discussion on talk page concerning persistent removals of a sourced section that KarlV and a number of other DE-wiki users dislike. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Estlandia, your comment made is inappropriate and reads as a personal attack on the talk page of the German Misplaced Pages page. You're not welcoming German editors to your page which would personally offend me being German myself and considering opening up myself to translating pages. Can you provide diffs to support your accusations?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,462,046) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of a challenge with that interpretation. That said, let me start by saying "keep your filthy battles on other Misplaced Pages projects off of this one. Period". Now, back to the topic: it's ironic that one party says they don't want to hear from editors from the German Misplaced Pages (not Germans as a whole), but then wants to link to situations from the German Misplaced Pages ... can't have it both ways! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is some of that statement referring to me?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,465,503) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was a response to the long diatribe against my person posted by User:Toter Alter Mann - a statement in which he claimed that

Most of his “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists

and that I promote “ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV”. This is blatant lie. I've written 80 articles here (compared with 1 (!) article by this user) and none of them include anything remotely far-right!
It's no surprise 'Toter Alter Mann' would come to attack me - I've added a number of times a section summarising the recent criticism on German Misplaced Pages . This was removed numerous times not because there was anything wrong with it, but because main editors of German Misplaced Pages won't tolerate any criticism of the project at all. One of the articles concerned has been written by Doctor Jean-Paul Picaper , and the other article by the newspaper documents in detail what they regard as political manipulations in German Misplaced Pages, advanced by anonymous users, including this 'Toter Alter Mann' and de:Benutzer:KarlV. The dominating hard-left majority (in the political topics) of contributors to the German Misplaced Pages cannot stand any criticism. In their Wiki, they will simply block you, here they will erase whatever critical is said of the situation in the project and call you a Nazi in turn (see above). Estlandia (dialogue) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. Where did I say that I don't want to hear anything from Germans? There are many constructive German editors active here. Please don't misinterpret.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And why are you doing defamations against me, if you are responding to another user?--KarlV 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hence, me interpreting your hostility against German editors. I would suggest that Estlandia, not respond to any remarks on public talk pages and respond patiently and in a non-bitey way on their own page instead of removing with summaries like "you're not welcome here".—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,470,032) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting here. Just yesterday there was an edit on the arbcom page by someone frome here (EN), saying, that we on DE are discussing in a way that wouldn't be possible on EN. And now, I read words like watchdogs, you are not welcome here ... Do you have some explanation for that , Estlandia? Regards -jkb- (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

He didn't say that. KarlV named this section "watchdogs", as he likes to be called. Others name it conspiracy theorists.-- KarI Vl  Talk  15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that KarlV has apparently a conflict of interest as he is one of the antagonists in the described passage about German Misplaced Pages. -- KarI Vl  Talk  15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to sound as anti-DE-Wiki again, but given that a heavy campaign of canvassing is going on there, perhaps all the related DE-Wiki accounts (there will be a LOT of them soon ;-)) should be considered as meatpuppets for the purposes of the article German Misplaced Pages? Estlandia (dialogue) 15:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a recent posting on the German Administrators notice board about the conflict you brought from de:WP to en:WP. If someone would try to discredit the en:WP on de:WP - be sure - you would read a similar posting here.--♥ KarlV 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No-one is discrediting the German wiki apart from you and some of your pals doing this with this kind of behaviour. Accepting critical views is a normal part of life, and we here have learned to live with criticism, cf relevant parts of the article Misplaced Pages. There are numerous critical newspaper articles referred to and everyone can live with that. Estlandia (dialogue) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So - as I can read - I cannot expect an apologize from your side - which would be a first step to enter in a normal cooperative communication.--♥ KarlV 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Are you seven years old? You cannot "force" an apology, and thus issuing an ultimatum that you won't cooperate unless you get one is pretty rampantly ridiculous. Wise people take the higher road than that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont read it as a demand for an apology. I read it as "If you want to be mature about this, let's talk, if not then I don't want to waste my time." Personally, I think de:Wiki issues should stay on de:Wiki and KarlV is right to say he shouldnt be slandered here.--v/r - TP 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know this Estlandia guy, but as he refers to the Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung-Affair, I can testify that a group of right-wing-activists is trying to whitewash articles about their organisations or media, like the Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung. We have had many problems with these people, I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I know Liberaler Humanist. He is famous on German wikipedia for his arbitrary proposels and he belongs to the inglorious Diddl-Club, a host for trolls. He and KarlV try to whitewash German wikipedia from everything which fits not into their left-wing to pretended humanistic point of view. Please stop this and let it stay in German wikipedia.--Humanistic liberal (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked for reasons that should be obvious upon a comparison of his username with that of the editor he's accusing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum: “I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities” Exactly, who disagrees with us shall be banned on sight, just the way the comrades are used to in the project controlled by them. Only that it's not gonna be that way here, Genossinnen und Genossen! Otherwise, agree with the comment by Humanistic liberal.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The german Misplaced Pages is object to far-right-wing-extremists. A lot of users with left-liberal-modest point of views are banned for political reasons in the german Misplaced Pages. Some of the right-wing-Studentenverbindung-people made even career in the foundation like FrankS. People, who openly disagree with some of this right opinion-leaders are mobbed and banned. Information within the german Misplaced Pages about right-wing-activities is deleted immediately, f.e. POV-Information about Nazi Herwig Nachtmann by KarlV.. Herwig Nachtmann is member of the german Nazi-Party, member of the Schlagende-Burschenschaften (students organisation), and is to be assumed to have a lot of wikipedia-accounts in the german Misplaced Pages. The CEO of the german chapter PavelR. is famous for his critics-zensorship-activities in right-wing articles about persons like the nazi-philosopher (der Führer schützt das Recht) de:Carl Schmitt (but only before his career in the german chapter). This people are in no way representing the scientific community, even they are claiming to be students or part of the "traditions" of german schlagende-students-verbindungen. To make a documentation about the far-right-and-antisemitic-activities in the german Misplaced Pages, I started my thomas7-Blog outside of the german wikipedia: http://thomas7.bloggles.info/. HabenDruck (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC) aka Thomas7

Newspaper sources demonstrate left-wing, not right-wing bias. It's just your conspiracy theory and irrelevant here. Estlandia (dialogue) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory, FrankS. is member of a Schlagende-Studentenverbindung, and PavelR. could be seen in the article-history. I do and will document it on my blog.

• One of the most serious german newspapers Zeit about commercial influence
• Süddeutsche: Im Netz der Misplaced Pages-Bürokratie

Some articles with strong right wing bias are:

• Annett Müller
• Burschenschaft Danubia München
• Deutsch Sowjetischer Krieg
• Deutsche Großraumwirtschaft in Polen
• Endstufe
• Noie Werte
• Polenfeldzug
• Recht auf Heimat
• Westfeldzug

The not very important newspaper Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung ist a right-wing publication, which is mentioned in the article correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HabenDruck (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

HabenDruck (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is the Administrators' noticeboard for the English language Misplaced Pages. I am a bit confused: what incident has occurred in the English Misplaced Pages? jmcw (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is that a section covering criticism of political bias in German Misplaced Pages (section concerned, (history)) has been persistently removed by users from DE-Wiki (and re-added numerous times).Estlandia (dialogue) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

the internet has started to make the world round (and smaller). HabenDruck (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

HabenDruck, have you posted at de:Misplaced Pages:Administratoren/Probleme? GiantSnowman 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did that 8 years ago. At the end I only includes the NPOV-Tag in articles, since my hints where deleted again and again bei studenten-verbindungs-members (f.E. User:Ale! and User:Rabe). At the end, the NPOV-Tags were removed and my user account was attacked by 5 election-frauded votes. The fifth voting excluded my account from the german Misplaced Pages, so I (Thomas7) "emigrated" to the french wikipedia 7 years ago, where my account was accepted by a public voting. 5 years ago, my french account was deleted silently by User:Bapti, who was incited by german right-wing users. The right-wing studenten-verbindungs-member FrankS. (made career in the wp-foundation) deleted silently my outreach-foundation-account, again without reason. Thomas7. HabenDruck aka Thomas7 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute with some edit warring and personal attacks thrown in. Stop edit warring and personal attacks. They are not allowed and maybe cause for a ban. Take the content dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution, and act like mature encyclopedia builders, while there. You will need reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How to react like an hero, if you are faced with right-wing-mobbing? HabenDruck (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No one should be mobbed but there is little that an be done about a content dispute here. I'm unclear on who the parties are but I understand some want to add or change content on the German Misplaced Pages article, and others oppose that change. If that is the case, and you cannot settle it on your own. One of you should file at WP:DR/N. Identifying all involved parties. I understand there maybe language issues but they also maybe able to find a German speaker to assist them. They can also help you make sure conversations stay civil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that we can move this issue forward here in the English Misplaced Pages. We certainly have sympathy with someone being mobbed but we cannot add to your arguments. I wish you well! jmcw (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why the discussion are going far away of the main incident in en:WP (see the first post in this thread). The incident was the personal attack from User:Estlandia naming me e.g. a watchdog.--♥ KarlV 14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right; it could be construed as a personal attack, if the user actually meant to call you a "dog." On the other hand, it could be a poor attempt to describe your behavior, as an over-eager "watcher." Estlandia should more carefully choose his words, if the latter, and should stop it, now, if the former. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I assume this is user:S1 also known as A.Savin in German WP. Has nothing to do with en:WP. Close that thread.--Angel54 5 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Talk Page Entry Too- Article Kabir

When I saw Kabir article I found a part of the article is badly messed up, with unnecessary bold letters in a whole paragraph, no space after a sentence etc. I did not change any content of the article, only worked on formatting and following Guidelines mentioned about the edit in article's talk page.
Later I found they not only deleted edit from the article, he has deleted my talk page entry too.
I can understand about the article. The whole section was not very good written with some formatting errors, that's why I tried to fix it there. But, I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted too.
I am not mentioning the editor's name here, since I am mainly talking against the act, and not the person, but, once again, I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the editor had a point in undoing your edits to the article, since the information you added was unverified and the tone far from neutral. I don't know if such editing was the reason for the article protection. But while I don't rightly see the merit of the talk page edit, I don't understand the reason for its removal either and will revert. Now, this is not a matter requiring administrative intervention: you could have reverted the talk page entry yourself. Drmies (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be confused, Titodutta did not add any material, he just cleaned up the formatting Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You're correct. Let me just say that on the whole the edit in question by Sarabseth is mostly fine, but the edit summary is misleading. Titodutta, my apologies, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with your edit; I should have looked farther back in the history. We do have, then, a misleading edit summary by Sarabseth (it speaks of "edit", singular, when it reverts maybe two dozen of them) with an incorrect use of the word "disruptive". This is ironic, given that the editor earlier blasted someone else for an unclear edit summary. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Removing your talkpage post is a definite violation of wp:TPO I will warn the editor of this. Don't think administrative action is required at this point. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

• Thanks! This is resolved from my side, I am not adding resolved template since the editor has not joined the discussion yet. Thanks --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, twice over.

First for the Talk page edit. I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that) since that's already recorded on the History page. But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.

Also, my apologies for the inaccurate edit summary. The background is that on Feb 19, there were repeated attempts by an anonymous editor to keep adding the same material, although it was repeatedly reverted by 5 different editors. This culminated in the page being protected, with the explanation "persistent disruption". It appears that along the way what was intended to be an edit reverting the disputed material accidentally left it in. And subsequent reversion edits reverted to this version, so the disputed material was still incorporated in the article.

My edit to the article that is in question was just correcting this situation. Substantively, I was just restoring the version that existed before the edits by the anonymous editor that were labeled disruptive not by me, but by an admin. Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material; consequently, they were reverted too in restoring the last clean version. I realize that I didn't dot all my i's and cross all my t's when I put down "reverted the disruptive edit that sneaked through before the page was protected" as my edit summary. But to call that summary misleading sounds a little extreme. --Sarabseth (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been.......

Reply: It is sometimes highly helpful. For example, you could simply clear everything by writing in my same talk page entry something like, :Hi, Tito, I have made some changes and reverted last few edits. Unfortunately your this edit where you have made some formatting correction has been reverted too..... It is not possible in Page History. So, I feel talk page entry is sometimes very helpful.

But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.

Reply: Yes, I could revert your edit (but, I generally don't to avoid wp:editwar), but deleting a talk page entry was something very surprising for me. I have never seen anyone deleting a valid talk page entry. I was highly puzzled.

The background is that on Feb 19...

Reply: Yes, I noticed the recent incidents and edits there, and that was the main reason, I added the talk page entry. See the starting of the entry Since it seems to be a sensitive article to edit, I thought of this talk page entry - it'll make sense, I hope.

Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material......

Reply: Actually I got suggestion to edit this article from suggestbot, see Add Sources section. I felt bad to see that the article on Kabir has got only one star in sources. Anyway, that's a different thing.
--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Still don't see how it's helpful to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that). --Sarabseth (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonably common to post such to the talk page, including a diff is good too, in just these sorts of situations where confusion may occur. It is not common to remove talk page posts, unless they contribute to disruption for instance. Both editors have acted here in good faith. NewbyG ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review please

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

Last week, a very WP:LAME edit war broke out at WP:V over whether the lead paragraph should or should not be tagged with an {{tl:under discussion}} tag. I protected the article for a few days. When the protection expired, an IP reverted the last edit to the tag . User:S Marshall then reverted the IP . Since I could see the edit war starting up again (it has been going on for months), and I believe that edit warring on policy pages is very unhelpful, and edit warring over inline tags is extremely lame...and since S Marshall had been involved in the previous edit war, I have blocked him for 24hrs. He is of the opinion that this is not fair. If this is the majority view, I will consider myself admonished and any admin can unblock him. It is probably worth looking at and as well, as the same edit war has spilled onto my talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I can look into this. Could you please glance up one section and apply your checkuser tools to that problem? Jehochman 13:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I spotted this on Elen's talk page and looked into it a little while ago - my thoughts are on S Marshal's talk page, and are roughly that the block was not a good one. Worm · (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad block. Obviously an error. It should be removed immediately. The user had a clean block log, and made only one revert. He was attempting to restore the status quo after a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. The block was applied late and without warning. It is just plain stinky in all ways. Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock- I agree with the Worm. In my opinion S Marshall's edit was not problematic and, even if it had been, blocking someone 24 hours afterward with no other dud edits in the meantime just comes across as punitive. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• There was a clear edit war going on, S Marshall should've really known better than to keep on reverting (especially on such a frivolous issue). That being said, I don't particularly think that a block was the best option; a warning would probably have sufficed. —Dark 13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock with no admonishment good faith but unnecessary/unproductive block. Nobody Ent 13:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Unblock - His last revert was over 24 hours before the block, and the one before was over 7 days before the block. Additionally, he was restoring the consensus version of the page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per Reaper Eternal. I do not think this block is to "prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages" as WP:BLOCK clearly states. It is clearly punitive, per Reyk. I believe this block is a huge mistake, and should be undone asap. --Bmusician 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This block has no support whatsoever, so I have undone it. being a short block, we do not have the liberty to discuss it for six or twelve hours while the user is subjected to an injustice. Jehochman 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a mistake, not an injustice. Admins are only supposed to act in good faith; they're not required to be perfect. Nobody Ent 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible for something to be both a mistake and an injustice. Nobody's accused Elen of bad faith.—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is injustice. Here is just Wikpedia: stuff happens. Nobody Ent 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that some injustices are more unjust than others. This particular injustice wasn't a big deal, although I admit I was a bit upset about it at the time. But a small, mistaken injustice is still an injustice. There's no need to take Jehochman to task over his choice of words there.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Things are either fair or they're not. The size of the stakes involved don't have anything to do with that. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not perfect - just admins. Any reason not to archive? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes archive this away. There is one thing to note. User:Jehochman, who unblocked user:S Marshall, has made the comment above

that a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. That is ABF, checkuser resolved the ip address to Prague? So user:Jehochman's grasp of this matter is defective and based on a false and prejudicial premise.

Did they assume what they wanted to assume, and then find themself in aggreeance? User S Marshall has edit warred for months, so this is not the consensus version of the page (8-1 correction 2 against per edits to the project page) so userS Marshall is being aided here in disruptive activity.

User:Elen of the roads warned against edit warring and had no option but to block userS Marshall. No reverts were made for a week? the page was protected! For complete clarity , *i* have made one (1) only edit to the section in question, and do not appreciate being classed as engaging in the edit war, when user S Marshall has reverted there countless times to protect the tag which is objected to by a consensus of users. And, there is no on-going discussionas such. NewbyG ( talk) 09:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, actually, please don't archive this yet. I should like to see Newbyguesses' evidence for his allegations first. Specifically, Newbyguesses, please link the consensus of users to remove the tag which you say exists. Any user visiting WT:V will, of course, be able to find the ongoing discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• This now appears to be a content dispute, over whether the tag should be included on the project page, in perpetuity. There are arguments that the tag has consensus and arguments that the tag has no consensus. Evidently talk page discussion has failed to resolve the issue. There is definitely consensus that no one should be edit warring over it. I would suggest one of you file a case at WP:DR/N naming all involved parties. And stop edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: There is a discussion now open at WP:DR/N hopefully to address the content issue but this may need the future good offices of admins, if it goes off the rails (there has already been a mention of moving part of it back here under the pointy editing policy.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Evidence? For user:S Marshall, who never posts diffs or evidence of any kind : --If editors insist on repeatedly and disruptively removing the tag because they don't like it, or because they wish to pretend that VNT is a mainstream view, then my response will be to repeatedly remove VNT from the policy and encourage others to do so as well.—User:S Marshall 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC). Ample evidence of user:S Marshall's battlefield mentality and intention to continue a program of disruption at WP:V and WT:V. Unblocked? NewbyG ( talk) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet of Fragments of Jade

68.45.60.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I suspect to be the banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disrupted Misplaced Pages by making questionable edits to articles such as List of Metal Gear characters, leaving personal attacks on other editors' talk pages, using very defensive edit summaries, and blanking the user's own talk page. Today, the IP in question left an insulting message on my talk page and made questionable edits to the List of Metal Gear characters articles. I need a simple solution to help solve this problem. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Without having looked at anything but that "insulting" message, I do have to say that the message per se is not very insulting. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• They're blocked for two weeks by FisherQueen. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean Henrik. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Will FoJ ever realize that there is a path back to Misplaced Pages ... but that they keep tromping all over it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DFFJCyberCrimesUnit

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

DFFJCyberCrimesUnit (talk · contribs)

It would probably be good for an admin to address this user and their contributions. Calabe1992 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same as FFJCyberCrimesUnit (talk · contribs), earlier blocked by Tnxman307 as a WP:UN violation. Deor (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, had I taken a good look at the actual history of the page I would have seen that. Whoever's operating those accounts needs to be straightened out regarding policy here. Calabe1992 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually noticed similarity with User:Foundationforjustice... _Whaledad (Talk to me) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:NLT. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact they're making up a federal agency (There is no such agency as "United States Cyber Terrorism Office"), is it possible there're more sockpuppets under there? —Jeremy v^_^v 04:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done Jeremy: do not uncover us. Remember what happened to . US CTO (sssht!) 05:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button"

Votestacking-I read the article after I stumbled across this discussion

has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Misplaced Pages rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I am not sure about is this. Does Eschoir have a possible WP:COI issue there? That may be one way to resolve it. As I said before, I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, so I can not get involved in details there right now, and that is why we need a general 9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as suggested so editors can be called for help. (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What an interesting idea: add it to the banner. Well, if you like the "Click here in case of emergency" button I just added to the top of this talk page, it should be relatively easy to add the button to the banner. It would take a consensus, of course, and we'd want to coordinate with John's redesign of the banner. – (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

has helped very much, and I express my appreciation. As for Eschoir, I think he just enjoys stirring others up. In the past, another favourite target of his was Free Republic (see the archived talk pages). (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The button looks good, I hadn't realised that's what you meant. (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to , we could, maybe, have some sort of dedicated section to this page, or some other page, in which we could list subjects which would seem to require immediate concern. There is material in the banner which allows us to indicate that an article needs immediate attention, but all it does is add the article to a category of such articles, and I'm not sure how many people watch that category. Personally, I would have no objections to seeing such a section added to this page, maybe at the top? (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012(UTC)

The 9-1-1 button adds a section on the talk page with a standard section title and all those dark, home of a big red warning sign. It also adds a standard edit sum to the history which is easily seen if you watchlist the page. A seperate section on this talk page for time-sensitive items is a good idea, but it won't generate a pre-formatted edit sum. That means you'll actually have to read this page to check for critical items. WPConservatism is setup to use the banner paramenter for "Needs attention", and our To-do list displays a little message that there are articles that need attention. It is largely ignored. I think a better solution would be to put the 9-1-1button we use here on the banner: it would be availab e at articles and when clicked it would create a preformatted section on this talk page. A 9-1-1 button only works if people are watching for it, and know what to do when they go to the page. I'd like to propose that we create the position of Seargeant-at-arms. They would have to study WP:DR and how to close discussions. Their duties would entail watching for 9-1-1s on the noticeboard and responding as appropriate.– (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

and it seemed germane. But I r eally don't know what to do. The idea of creating an officer to learn how to close down discussion is chilling to me. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Complete outside opinion here. I have no interest whtat-so-ever in this subject...I'll let others make the philosophical argument...but this is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Quinn 04:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Germane to what? I don't see how this is vote stacking, or where your officer comes from. Are you perhaps not on the winning side of a conflict? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of notifying editors 1 through 5, though not necessary in that order. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This notional 9-1-1 button is exactly the sort of votestacking concern that has repeatedly been expressed regarding the Conservatism Project. "Help me, I need a yes-man." Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the very last thing that should happen is that any so called 'Seargeant-at-arms'(sic) should do is close a discussion. In fact, in any situation where the 9-1-1 button was used, I'd be dubious about anyone from Wikiproject Conservatism closing it. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is, quite simply, the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard. Are they trying to get their WikiProject shut down as disruptive to the project? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI this is not about WPConservatism. It is about a proposal at WPChristianity. I am the editor who came up with the "Sgt-at-arms" idea. The idea was that a neutral, uninvolved editor could act as a mediator at contentious articles, and formally close discussions that had run their course. Sort of "admin-lite". Nothing remotely resembling vote-stacking here. – Lionel 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Although it was a remark by me that occasioned the "red button" proposal, I have been in no way involved in discussing it. I would make a few observations here:

1. I fail to see anything wrong with drawing attention on the Christianity noticeboard to a Misplaced Pages discussion on a topic concerning Christianity.
2. I presume that the sergeant-at-arms proposal was not meant to confer extraordinary dictatorial powers on a single editor. In any case, it remained a proposal of a single editor that received no support from other editors. The place to discuss that proposal was where it was put forward. Proposals made by just one editor and accepted by no group of editors and not even by one other editor must be in their hundreds each day; they don't qualify as "incidents" to be discussed on this noticeboard.
3. Even the red-button proposal itself (on which I express no opinion) is still under discussion on the page where it was made and has reached no precise conclusion.
4. The editor who raised the question here under the non-neutral heading Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button" is the subject of discussion on another noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the comment by me that occasioned the red-button proposal did not come out of the blue. It was a follow-up to another editor's remark: "I have seen good and knowledgeable users just stop. Consider User:Jpacobb. He was knowledgeable and nice. When he first started, I tried to encourage him to edit, alas a short time later, disaster struck on Origin of the Eucharist (where some user may have a WP:COI) and Jpacobb has not edited since February 6th. That is called a 'loss'. He could have been a good editor, but was probably too nice to deal with that situation. Had there been more support for him, he may have stayed. The editor he (and myself) argued against was blocked for a day, but then continued on and on again. My guess is that that was too much for Jpacobb who wanted to do 'cooperative development' but realized that is not how Misplaced Pages works, despite the smiles shown on banner ads at fundraising." My comment should have been placed in its context. The text of my comment is given above as that of Editor2: not a request for others to stack up, but for advice on what I myself should do. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The immediate problem that I see is that Eschoir has been reverting against consensus since late January at Eucharist and Origin of the Eucharist. He was recently reported at Misplaced Pages:AN3#User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ). Eschoir does not make clear that he copied the comments by others (italicized above) from Misplaced Pages talk:Christianity noticeboard#Origin of the Eucharist. You can get some impression of Eschoir's style of negotiation (or lack thereof) by reading the last part of his talk page. He returned to Misplaced Pages after a long absence in January, 2012 and resumed a war at Origin of the Eucharist that he had last engaged in in 2008. He was blocked 24 hours on 8 February for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for mentioning the wrong Wikiproject. My comments still stand, any 'sergeant-at-arms' appointed by any wikiproject should not be closing any discussions raised by a '9-1-1' call at the wikiproject, nor should anyone from that wikiproject. I agree Eschoir is a problem but that doesn't affect whether this is a problem or not. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I kinda remember Wikiproject Catholicism getting in some hot water over something like that, but I may have been thinking of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The sergeant-at-arms proposal, made by one editor only, has won support neither here nor on the page where it was put forward, and can be considered dismissed. The complaint here was instead about alleged "institutional votestacking- '9-1-1 button'". Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean, that mfd I linked to was about a votestacking squad. There have been a few other such incidents (i.e. other wikiprojects of various sorts turning into canvassing operations) too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The still on-going discussion on the page where the red-button proposal was raised shows that it is not aimed at vote-stacking but at "ask(ing) for comments from those people who know the topic, because the basic idea was to get input based on knowledge of the topic, rather than just general ideas". So what is the alleged "incident" that is being discussed here? Esoglou (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What would qualify as an incident for discussion on this noticeboard is instead the behaviour of an editor who, as well as (in good faith, we must presume) misleading others here into thinking that a project (of which I am not a member) was vote-stacking, insistently edits certain articles in a way that utterly ignores the consensus of all other editors (cf. the discussion on the question). Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: This kind of Alerting, with the exception of the Article Alerts system, is the exact thing WP:CANVAS warns about. I would like to draw a parallel from this set of proposals to the way that the Rescue tag was used to solicit action from a set of editors who had a specific viewpoint about deleting articles from Misplaced Pages (The

Bullied

A lot of users on Misplaced Pages re bullying me. I evem told them I face real life harassment and they reverted me. I have no girlfriend. I'm ugly. No one ever responds to me or tries to help me. I wish somethign would go right in my life :(. Please help me. Are any of you women on Misplaced Pages single? SKeptical of Love (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't shoot yourself in the foot - do you realy think your edits were neutral or even worth of inclusion? , , ... was this civil?. Best to read over Misplaced Pages:Five pillars before you proceed.Moxy (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is my whole entire life no one has cared about me. No one. No one loves me. I call for help and no ones hear me. I have no heart because the heart I have was broken. Do you understand this or are you lacking in any human compassion? Do you not care if everyone hates me? SKeptical of Love (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This ain't the site for you, maybe. It's not a therapy session. Doc talk 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Suicide responseMoxy (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, Misplaced Pages isn't a website to help people who are suffering of depression ot to give emotional support. Nor is it a place to meet a person to fall in love with. While we can sympathize, we still have rules. Rules that you broke. You're more than welcome to contribute of course, once you don't break anymore rules. However, you have not been bullied. If anything, your statement of telling another user to shut up, could be considered bullying. Gorlack36 (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Or even more bluntly. Misplaced Pages is not for you, given your current sentiment expressed in your messages above. You need to seek something in real life to do to aid your problems. S.G. _ping! 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this new user knows the acronym "AN/I". I'm also surprised that this user is not blocked after committing an egregious BLP violation, something no good faith new user would stoop to. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a troll—no one goes on ANI to complain about his deficient love life. Recommend indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Goodvac (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A troll? No way. Nope. Doc talk 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

100% agree Doc9871. There are only good faith edits by this user. A quick google for "Lela Star" "Peter North" overturns the worst of the accusations. This is a lonely person who is sitting at their computer because they have nothing RL to do. What part of this is unusual ? Penyulap _talk 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Doc9871 was joking (correct me if I'm wrong). His edit summary was - ;P. Goodvac (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my actions on here. I will try to be better from now on. I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way. I will do what I can to be better. I do have a lot to offer. On Misplaced Pages and in love. SKeptical of Love (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy happy joy joy! Doc talk 10:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The following users are  Confirmed as each other:

• Technogreek43 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHA (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Half-Man Half-Beast (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Geek Squad Supreme Leader (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DTF.... are u? (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Huckleberry Cherry (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hey how are you today (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SKeptical of Love (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone ought to block the latest sock for block evasion. Night Ranger (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All the accounts are blocked except for the main. In the future, I do urge Skeptical to keep to one account to avoid unnecessary complications. Also, while involvement and collaboration within the community is encouraged for the purposes of encyclopedia-building, Misplaced Pages is neither a social networking or a dating site. —Dark 14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw he had done some good editing, and didn't see him showing a preference for social networking, but I didn't (and can't) check the lot. Either way, if he is more more interested in editing I say ban him as an act of humanity. _{and me too} Penyulap _talk 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people think this editor is for real?? From his user page:

All I want is love, But love isn't for me. I'd do anything to find love. That is my downfall- that I care too much. I am too good to be evil and too evil to be good. I am the ghost in the night, the shadow of all life. Hatred and lies is all I know. Judge me and label me. For I have judged and labeled you. Hate me. For I hate you. Together let's show the world its folly: Hope and faith. Belief. Love. Eradicate it and show all who live that love does not exist and only evil can survive.

I don't think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

well spotted, tanslated it Penyulap _talk 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't "translate" his user page for him, at least not without his permission. I reverted your change.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Bbb23. I'm very perplexed that some can still show good faith to this user. "I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way." confirms he was just trolling us, as does looking at his contributions under the other socks. Goodvac (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this phenomenon before. It's a judgment call, and it depends on the editor as to where they finally give up on another editor. I draw the line earlier than some.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to troll you guys after the fact you showed kindness. It sounds corny, but its true. I sincerely was bad on Misplaced Pages, because I actually thought you guys were heartless. I'm not saying I deserve to be thought of as good or evil. I'm not your average user. I have a lot of emotional issues. I do want to contribute and I have made good edits in the past. I understand that I have created many accounts. I have been a major troll in the past. Back to when I was 13 years old in 2006. It is mainly because I really don't have the happiest life. I troll people. In real life, I cause a lot of problems too. But I'm trying to help myself and I have been seeking counseling. In my honest opinion, it is irrelevant to me, what becomes of this. i want to be a good user. I really do. I just wish there was a way I could be a good user and forget about my past. if you think those are the only accounts I have created on Misplaced Pages throughout the years, you are mistaken. I have created a lot of accounts. I am not a saint when it comes to using one account. I'll be the first to admit that. But I can do a lot of good things. I know a lot about sports. I believe I can edit sports articles and make them better. The thing is, I'm not good at the actual formatting of articles. I'm not good at creating tables and charts and graphs. I'm not good at making headlines to articles. heck, I don't even know how to format and create a userbox. If I am determined to be of good faith and I agree to use just one account. I request the Technogreek43 account. That is the one I have the most history with, and the one with the fondest memories. Call me good or evil. I am both. But If people help me, I will be of great value to Misplaced Pages. I truly believe I am one who can help. All these years I just never believed anyone would really want to help me because of my past. I apologize to all I have hurt. But as for now, I have a duty. And that is to make the sports articles on Misplaced Pages better. SKeptical of Love (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'I actually thought you guys were heartless' really ? here on wikipedia ? NO! (<-epitome of sarcasm). I expect this editor can use his experience and skill to write about his experiences as he has done here, to help other young editors to be better writers. We need this editor on wikipedia to help translate policy guides into ENG:VAR 'teen rebel', using firsthand experience.

This editor as he is now sets a perfect example of RL and WP civility and honesty with his recent apologies and openness. Too many editors here could learn from his mature example, rather than playing hide and seek with pedantic adherence to misinterpretation of policy. I think he could make a fine leader until he is inevitably burned at the stake in the inevitable drive-by judgment, or not. Penyulap _talk 08:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the previous blocks no longer apply and ask SKeptical of Love to choose a new name, rather than an old one, so someone can assist him according to the relevant policy. I'd suggest the current one is fine, but whatever. Penyulap _talk 12:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev

Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect that this account may have been compromised. Can someone take a look? (See the most recent activity after inactivity for a few months.) Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not compromised; it's likely dilip's gone nuts. Watch out for socks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, may be he is showing his frustation for being topic banned --SupernovaExplosion 11:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Year-long pattern of disruptive editing by User:Lung salad needs to be addressed.

Admin attention is needed with respect to the ongoing pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing by User:Lung_salad. I have come into contact with the editor at Talk:Josephus on Jesus, where his engagement has been fractious, leading to an earlier block for a 3RR (in fact 11RR) violation. But it appears as if this is simply the latest irruption of a larger trend of difficult and disruptive editing. The mounting frustrations of many editors who have responded in good faith at the above page mirrors the experience of editors elsewhere, including discussions from the following articles:

• Talk:Bilderberg_Group/Archive_4#Disputes
• Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_6#Lung_salad.27s_criticisms
• Talk:Priory_of_Sion
• Talk:Knights_Templar#Neo-Templars
• Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_26#.22See_also.22_additions_by_user:_Lung_salad

And there are no doubt others. AFAICT the editor is bringing a curious POV to certain pages that may reflect some elaborate theory that he has developed. In the case of Talk:Josephus on Jesus, the user is insistent that leading academic sources should be discredited and is insistent on editing the article to contest an academic consensus with which he disagrees. Attempts to engage the editor on his talk page have not been successful (examples: , , , , ). This, it appears, is a recurring theme. So we have wasted a lot of time with this, and there is clearly a major problem here as editors at one after another article have had to expend a great deal of effort pushing back against what comes across as the editor's single-minded POV. I will notify other editors who have been involved in these disputes to weigh in as they may be able to provide more insight. Whatever the case, something needs to be done. Eusebeus (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say that in this discussion 4 editors commented, and 2 of them stated that Lung Salad's edits and explanations are "bizzare". I would also use the term bizzare, so that makes it 3 out of 4. And the 4th editor said it was like WP:TE. The problem is that these cyclic discussions are eating up time like Pac-man as I said on that page. As stated there, he again asked for references which he had previously modified to diverge from the source. I called that "puzzling" but it should really be called bizzare. At one point I counted that he had been told to read WP:V 21 times, now it is about 30 times. It was borderng on comedy, so I joked that he needed to call the WP:RS expert he was disagreeing with (based on facts) and get the expert to write another book, for the expert's current book was against Lung Salad's unsourced edit. And he just said that the expert "has been dismissed". This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see problematic editing, but I do believe that WP:RFC/U is the right route here, rather than the immediate intervention for incidents ANI is supposed to be for. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I do not know how to start that type of process, and I am just out of breath repeating "please read WP:V" so I hope someone will start that process. But it really needs to be done. In the meantime, can we get a temporary help on the talk page by virtue of the WP:TE that is stopping everyone. After 30 mentions of WP:V we are now getting long repeated arguments based on facts and primaries. If a temporary restraining order can be issued, we can at least have a few days of calm. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have provided User:Lung salad with a very detailed final warning. I have been watching his page since he was first blocked a couple of weeks ago - he is likely to merely remove the warning, and ignore it. Should he be blocked again, I will warn you: he will bombard you with e-mails, so be prepared to remove e-mail access. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not "bombard" anybody with e-mails, and I can easily meet WP:V. I can reach my books on the shelf of my library. Lung salad (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

...and how about WP:CONSENSUS? How's your score on that? It is, after all, number 1 around here ... you seem to think it's somewhere beneath you to acknowledge it and back off, even when reached ... consensus does not mean unanimous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can produce POV articles if the majority of editors have only one goal in mind. Lung salad (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This might be a good time to point out that User:Jayjg, who is a highly accomplished mediator, has offered to mediate the content dispute on Josephus on Jesus. Maybe everyone could just step back for a few days until the mediator shows up and give mediation a chance to work. I think this problem can be solved pretty easily if the disputants would just calm down. With respect to the user conduct issue, many of the interventions could also be described as aggressive WP:Wikilawyering. I agree with the earlier suggestion that WP:RFC/U is the better way to go than some kind of summary judgement by WP:AN/I. This will also allow people to take a step back and have a more measured perspective. Ignocrates (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ignocrates. On this issue, let's let Jayjg mediate. An RfCU is the way to go for Lung salad. There are problems with his editing but ANI isn't the place to try to fix them. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let an RFC/U get started in any case, but I would recommend some action in any case just based on "the current activities" which are pertinent to WP:ANI. And in response to the attempt at a positive depiction of the situation, I should say that we have a user here who:

• Is aware of what a source says, for he has used that source himself.
• Goes to the page and modifies the quote from that source as well quotes from other sources, to make them deviate from what the sources say.
• Is notified about it, and asked to correct himself, but refuses.
• A week or two later asks for the same sources to be reproduced again, asking if they actually exist as sources! And when reminded of his own source deviant edit, just stops.

So the term "bizzare editing behavior" clearly applies here, and attempting to portray it in a positive light is just taking up time that would have gone to productive use elsewhere. How does one mediate the disruption of sources and a request for them again - that is not a content issue, is a "behavior issue". We have clearly disruptive editing behavior here that is taking up productive time. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Basic information that can be easily cited from verified published sources relating to Origen about Josephus is being blocked from the article. In a nutshell. Lung salad (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is not, however, and never has been, the only basis upon which material is added. WP:FT, WP:WEIGHT, and other policies and guidelines exist as well. There does seem to be some reason to suspect that this editor has a limited ability to grasp those other criteria, or, possibly, he might be driven by some form of POV. I request input from others about the propriety of sharing information this editor shared with me via e-mail, which I think might also perhaps be relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be open about it and let us know. We are all getting to be 95 years old by the time this discussion is over. I see no reason to not let us have the "facts" now that facts have been the issue again and again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm not aware of a consensus on whether unsolicited email is private or not; lacking such consensus basic respect would mean keeping it private. Nobody Ent 21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Says here pretty clearly not to post online. Nobody Ent 21:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I remembered something like that. That being the case, however, it should be noted that the editor's own user talk page history may well indicate that he has a perhaps less than good grasp of things like FT and WEIGHT, and, also, perhaps, less than an outstanding grasp of some religion related reference materials. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I any case, as you stated there are clear indications that there may be various root causes for the bizzare editing behavior we have seen. However, the bizzare behavior can not be allowed to eat up the life of other Wikipedians, and slow down the progress of other pages. And I would also note that Lung Salad did not dispute that he had deliberately edited quotes to make them deviate from sources, and that he had asked about the same sources again yesterday as though he did not know about them, but just changed the subject. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The longer this commentary goes on, the more I wonder if WP:AN/I is being asked to look in the right place. The few statements User:Lung salad has made here seem to be, for the most part, focused on improving article content (as she/he sees it). By contrast, the counter-parties to this dispute have made numerous non-specific statements about "bizarre editing behavior" that could be construed as escalating the edit conflict and WP:PAs. Maybe it's time to end this deliberation. Ignocrates (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I must tell you very frankly Ignocrates that I think the sideline coaching you have provided to this user all along has wasted significant amounts of my time in dealing with this. We have "clear diffs" that show edits that deliberately distort content, do not stay focused on a topic, ask about the same issue again, etc. etc. And apart from you others seem to think we have a problem on our hands. After you advised the user to stay quiet until this thread gets archived there has been some calm, but we can all read, as you know. And as John Carter said, it is not clear if the WP:Truth-related issues will go away. There have been no page improvements after all this mayhem, none. Just wasted time. Just wasted time. You spend very little time on it yourself, but are putting a driver on the road whose driving behavior has been just bizzare. The term "bizzare" was used by 2 out of 3 other users on that talk page, as you know. And from what I hear, he has bombarded people with emails. Just tell me with a straight face that is not bizzare behavior. Just tell me it is not. Do you think I want to spend time on this answering the same questions about WP:V again and again? We have a problem on our hands here. Just accept it. There is no need for wearing rose colored glasses here. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't have the time or energy to engage in this debate, I speak honestly from personal experience when I say that User:Lung salad is one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Misplaced Pages. On several occasions, I've seriously considered initiating the procedure to get him indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages but he would always give up arguing with me and temporarily disappear before I reached the breaking point. This is why I think he needs to be neutralized once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignocrates, please do us all a favor and read that a couple of times, at least. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I have great respect for Loremaster and his opinions, I think his concerns, and yours, are best handled at WP:RFC/U, as several people have suggested. With respect to your comments about me, I think this whole line of argumentation is off-topic and highly inappropriate. If you have a problem with me, you can take it up with me personally on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do not know you, and do not need to pursue matters on your talk page. My problem is "wasted time" based on the current brouhaha caused by the edits which started this thread. I do not see the logic in your comments made here, hence I will comment here. You have seen the edits that distort sources, etc. Then did I read that they are for "page improvement"? I suggest you need to read those diffs again and retract the statement they are for page improvement. And I do not see the logic in just dismissing Loremaster's comments or those of Eusebeus, etc. If you have respect for Loremaster, please respect his statements. Today, because there was no brouhaha and because I did not have to use my read WP:V mantra I actually managed to write a few articles. The problem is that having to repeat that mantra next week will be counterproductive to Misplaced Pages. That is why something needs to be done. History2007 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahrani people

Bahrani people was recently protected for a month, and continues to be subject to edit warring between registered accounts and anonymous IPs in the 89 range over unsourced content. I don't even want to know how far back this one goes, but page protection alone appears insufficient to produce resolution. See also Bahranis infobox for more of same . 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Requests for page protection would have been a useful place to raise this. I have semi-protected for another week and if edit-warring flares up then a week's full protection might help. It would be worth trying a discussion about options on the article talk page if folks working on the article wish to try a formal Dispute resolution process. --Fæ (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Dispute resolution sounds like a good idea, but I came here because I'm dubious as to the warring parties' willingness, given the lengthy entrenchment and lack of discussion. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Judd Smith personal attacks

Hi, the user Judd Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been causing me a lot of problems lately. As shown on the history page of my talk, he has personally attacked me and somewhat violated WP:OWN. Thanks, Maestro magico (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about one thing - did you actually email him? I also note that he's put his emaila address and phone number on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at Kayak roll - it seems to be just what an article shouldn't be, a page teaching people how do do various types of rolls, and stuff like " GOOGLE "shoulder dislocation" for details" and ". Persons with Uncles, Cousins or Dads who experience causeless shoulder-dislocation while sleeping ... probably should never experiment with Eskimo Roll activity." Oh, and "YOU ARE PERFORMING THE KAYAK ROLL...you are replicating where "a paddle" gets it's advantage". Not one single reference. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't email me. He couldn't find the "email this user" function. Maestro magico (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I worry about people in this day and age who still think it's a good idea to put their telephone numbers, addresses, etc. on public websites. Night Ranger (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I have just removed and revdeleted all the personal bits of info he had published about himself. I am about to file a request for oversight. Salvio 21:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to also revdelete the personal bits that are on my talk page. Maestro magico (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I was trying to, but internet is irritatingly slow where I live, tonight... Salvio 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing user rights after abuse of sources

Subsequent to the problems identified at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#RS.2FN_recommends_preventative_action_against_encyclopaedia_disruption and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references, would it not be wise to remove from User:Legolas2186 the rights of autopatrolled and reviewer? The editor has adequately demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know he hasn't edited in a while, but he should still be notified of this discussion; I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at AN was to wait until the editor addressed the sourcing issues; he has not edited as of now. No action is appropriate at this time. Nobody Ent 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• If Legolas does not return, there's no need. If he does return, then if he does not immediately address these issues, then there will be no need to remove the permissions because the account will be blocked indefinitely. If he returns and does immediately begin to address these issues, then permission removal might not be needed; that's a bridge we can cross later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Block user from creating Indian College Pages

The user User:Soumitrahazra has been creating many unnecessary Indian College pages on the Misplaced Pages. As I use "Twinkle" a Indian College comes up every so often, so I typed in the User Name and there were about 75 of them that he created and we patrolled. It would be in the best intrest to delete all pages he has created, and block him indefinite from creating more. DreamFieldArts (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2012 EDT)

MostWP pages are "unnecessary", as there is no requirement for pretty much anything to be created. Are these pages inappropriate? Would they be deleted at AfD? WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't enough, and colleges (where at all verifiable) are generally considered to be notable, thus appropriate pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to become an ANI notice bot. I've notified the editor, which, Dream, you should have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Like :) — Ched :  ?  21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at recent activity shows the creation of stub articles for colleges affiliated with the University of Calcutta (which are legion). They seem to have some degree of independent existence, but I suppose they could be proposed for merger into the parent institution. However blocking creation doesn't seem to me to be the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As colleges are notable by definition, I see little reason the articles could not be created. The major problem is that the editor creates them all with unsourced information and repeating the same grammar and citation errors over and over, in essence, causing much work to other editors. This is compounded by their complete refusal to discuss any issues. If you look at his their talk page you will see numerous attempts by myself to communicate, with no response. I think the editor has good intentions, but is a bit misguided about the need to communication and cooperate. If someone will leave them a polite note regarding the need to cooperate and communicate it may help. --Muhandes (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately (in my view), it's way too easy to create messy articles on WP. As to your suggestion for a polite note (unlike the one you left after you became understandably frustrated), I'm not sure how much good it will do. I think he's too busy creating articles to respond. Won't he run out of colleges eventually?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is too easy to create messy articles, but that's the price we pay for being an open encyclopedia. When saying "polite" I did not mean it should not be firm, and some editors look differently at notes coming from an administrator and ending with "or you may be blocked". I agree 99% it will help as much as the 20 polite notes (and two less polite ones) I left, but I don't think a block without warning is apropriate. If they continue to ignore attempts at communication, a 24hr block may help. --Muhandes (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He's also creating categories and templates, all to fit into his spreading structure of colleges. I'm not well-versed in when certain kinds of templates may be created (and retained). With respect to {{Vidyasagar University}}, would anyone care to comment on whether it should exist?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the user just making common mistakes or is there a more serious problem? No one should ever be blocked because they haven't responded to a talkpage comment, that would be punitive. However there is the issue of copyright I see may need to be addressed and that may need a block ....and maybe longer than just 24 hrs.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Soumitrahazra blocked until he begins to respond to the multiple talk page comments left by Muhandes in the last few weeks. Discussion of copyright problems is not optional, and they've consistently ignored all attempts to discuss this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of not discssing the copyright concerns is not an option!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to go offline, so to clarify 2 things:

• Even if it wasn't something as serious as copyright issues (there appear to be more problems too), you can't just ignore other people raising problems about your work.
• There's no need to consult me before unblocking.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Far be it from me to dispute how blocks are made, but I would certainly hope before such a block is ever made over JUST not responding to talk page comment that it be over something serious and not just spelling, grammer or other common mistakes being noted. As I said, that seems punitive and not just discouraging bad behavior...here however it is clearly warrented.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just a softie. --Muhandes (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too...but then that is why it is always best to have those who are more strict. Evens things out. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is merely one small piece of a much larger, endemic problem in this area. We need to do everything we possibly can to try to keep it under control, and mass creation of pretty much useless articles isn't helping us. Though I admit I'd love an excuse to use the nuke button again, I think a few people do need to go over these articles and figure out what to do with them; I'm happy to assist with anything that requires admin tools. In the meantime, should Soumitrahazra get unblocked, I'd push for a ban on creating these kinds of articles at least until people have finished going through the ones he's already created. When that's done, we can talk about whether it should be a temporary or permanent ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that following his comments above, User:Stefanomione continues to depopulate Category:Freudian psychology. The affected articles are essays, not books, and appear to have been correctly categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some time before you posted this comment, I created Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud ... you caught me in a work of progress .... Stefanomione (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Stefanomione's primary editing contribution is the creation of categories. While this is an important part of Misplaced Pages, I've also noticed an unacceptably large number of those categories are inappropriate and subsequently brought to CfD (look at his talk page!). I would recommend some kind of community sanction where any new category this user proposes must be discussed first, perhaps at WP:CATP. This would cut down on the massive strain this user puts on other editors trying to clean up after him. After all, it's much easier to create a category than to delete it, so this minor filter would dramatically improve the quality of the categories he produces. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • A few hours ago, while depopulating Category:Freudian psychology,I created Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis and Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud. This made the category less confusing (it contained/contains Books/Essays/Terminology/Institutions/People/Criticists/Criticism/Related topics/ ... The Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud - which I created earlier today and is not tagged as CfD - helps, I think, to bring a rapid access to theories really conceived by Sigmund Freud himself. Stefanomione (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
  And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, you just caught me in a work of progress: around the same time, I created and populated Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis, Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud and Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud, none of them CfD. Misplaced Pages is not "too much work", it is a work in progress. Stefanomione (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is the problem in a nutshell. You were in the process of creating a structure, and even when you knew that the existence of the whole structure was being challenged, you went ahead anyway. That's plain disruptive. The proper way to behave is that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but when that boldness is challenged we stop and discuss. You simply don't seem able to grasp this, which is why I support blocking you from category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. For this, I surely need the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Misplaced Pages habits hurt editing!

Original section header: "Bad Misplaced Pages habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

I usually just read Misplaced Pages. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Misplaced Pages nonsense.

Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Misplaced Pages yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Misplaced Pages, I mean, English Misplaced Pages. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here . Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Misplaced Pages. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two key things from my very own user page:

1. Who are all these socks (essay)
2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU

Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.

Secondly, Bad Misplaced Pages Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Misplaced Pages. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.

Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun

Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

A Sock Puppet investigation on user seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.

I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support banning the wrongdoer

(as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are

1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed

IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
• another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply . And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another misleading and wrong comment. Topgun clearly gives the link of the comment he is talking about --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban violation

• On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:

This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking

I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Misplaced Pages entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.

Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

tpg on obama:talk

Will someone please revert ? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Midemer a time-out for this edit. I am open to comment if anybody thinks I am being too harsh, but it seemed to me like a classic WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaa wedontdotimeoutblockomgwtfbbq. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"_"Human_Health"-2012-02-26T07:03:00.000Z">

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

The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)_"Human_Health""> _"Human_Health"">

I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)_"Human_Health""> _"Human_Health"">

It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

BoDu

BoDu (talk · contribs) has constantly POV edit warred as a means to remove referenced material which he personally dislikes in defiance of three different users at various articles and templates: Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, Chetniks, and Draža Mihailović. There are too many diffs to list his behavior so have I linked his contribs. When he was asked to provide sources backing his claims he either brushes it off or flat out lies and provides references that do not say what he claims. I request admin attention to this issue. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

BoDu (talk · contribs) Blocked for a week. Salvio 12:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gobichettipalayam

Hi, my attempts at cleaning up this article and adding sources are being reverted by User:Invisiblemaniac with claims that I'm engaging in "Persistent vandalism" in his edit summaries see exactly what he is doing here reverting my cleanup and a lot of sources I added and filled out and restoring POV like "BEST Diabetes hospital" and dead sources like the Indian railways one. He has now broken the 3RR rule with 4 reverts in just a couple of minutes most of which took place as I was working on the article and finding further sources and was initially unaware of his reverts. The offender decided to split unsourced information into many articles like Media in Gobichettipalayam (even though it is a small town with no media of its own), all unsourced and currently at AFD. Now he has persisted in creating further disruption by removing AFD notices in the articles, see , , , Can somebody have a word to him that I'm not a vandal and that my advice to him is in good faith? I'm trying to clear up the mess but he keeps reverting me to the poorer version. I don't have time to waste on such articles and having people revert it back to the unsourced badly structured state it was in before.. An admin please step in here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified User:Invisiblemaniac of this thread - Happysailor 13:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Did someone cleanup the article talkpage ? Penyulap _talk 14:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article and added like 11 sources and removed POV like "BEST diabetes hospital" and poorly structured sections and have been patiently waiting 40 minutes for somebody to revert back. Why is nobody doing anything about this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I waited nearly an hour for somebody to revert so I took the initiative. Why is there never an admin around when you need one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OH NOES 4RR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111. Yep, the night shift isn't quite as robust as day shift. Night Ranger (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Bronowski

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

I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lichtman (edit talk links history)

Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:78.101.214.226—Possible legal threat

This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Misplaced Pages" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I looked over the contribs and saw him reporting a vandal to AIV. He seems to simply be trying to revert vandalism. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

YehudaMizrahi

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

YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards