Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 23 February 2014 (→User Daicaregos - wikilawyering over basic editing rules: ?). 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Violation of editing restriction by CensoredScribe

Well, not already blocked; I blocked as a result of seeing this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) from 18:02 to 19:09 CS added the categories Category:Films featuring puppetry or Category:Television programs featuring puppetry to more than 15 articles. Earlier today CS also added the cat Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction to several articles. This would seem to be a violation of the restrictions that were agreed to in this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#CensoredScribe above. As usual most of these additions ignore the guidelines WP:DEFINING as well the fact that sourced info needs to be in the article before the cat can be added. More than one editor has mentioned the fact that CS should read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yet the edits performed ignore both of these. We have had more than one thread regarding these edits in the last week or so and at the end of them CS seems to accept the restrictions agreed upon. Within a day or two CS returns to the old editing patterns. This shows WP:COMPETENCE problems. (Redacted) MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe back at violating editing restrictions after previous block

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

And as soon as the previous block expires, CensoredScribe is back at making mass changes to categories again. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This comes after several different editors expressly explained his situation to him on his talk page. At this point I'm not convinced in the slightest that things are going to change. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again? Already? Having read through the long thread at User talk:CensoredScribe where CS entirely fails to understand why the last block was imposed , I would like to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be indefinitely blocked from editing, as clearly lacking the necessary competence to contribute to wikipedia in any useful capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Floquenbeam already blocked CensoredScribe for a month, with the warning that next block will be indefinite. I think that's enough for now. But I think I share Andy's skepticism that any of this is sinking in. CensoredScribe seems to not take any of this seriously, given their apology to dragons and quoting Darth Vader in the recent request to clarify the topic ban. -- Atama頭 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, set his restriction to "CensoredScribe may not add or remove categories from articles under any circumstances. They may only suggest adding or removing categories on the article talk page but must include specific references in support of adding any categories, but may suggest category changes to no more than one article per day." Don't even let him play around with categories. The talk page thing is a bone to see if they can improve. If they can't, that can be removed as well. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't even want to allow that much (the talk page stuff); there is no value whatsoever to this person's input into categorization. Categorizing JRR Tolkien's One Ring as a "Fictional WMD" makes my brain go all wibbly-wobbly. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to re-block without talk page access, their recent contributions really aren't much more than trolling. If a month off doesn't help, I definitely think an indef block is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That would make sense, but for all practical purposes the exact scope and wording of the topic ban no longer really matter. As it stands CensoredScribe has exhausted the community's patience and goodwill to the point that ANY disruptive editing, including but not limited to messing with categories, trolling, or even just wasting the community's time will be dealt with by a swift indef block that no admin in their right mind would undo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would be very surprised if anyone objected to an indefinite block - it probably would've gotten widespread support if it had been enacted this time around! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say after a month off the next move is just skip the whole indef discussion and just put up a CBAN review. It's pretty obvious that CS just doesn't it despite the repeated clubbings with the cluebat.Blackmane (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since the user is blocked without even talk page access, it's yet to be seen whether this block has been instructive at curbing CS's reckless behavior. Let him/her be judged on their edits after the block is over. Liz 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell

This user is being extremely disturbing. He got blocked two times before (check User talk:Lord of Rivendell for proof).

My first complaint is his edit sprees without consulting any other users in talk page and not obeying the plurarity rules. In Turkey article he keeps doing edits as he likes (see Turkey: Revision history for his edits and see Talk:Turkey about the other editor's complaints about him). Now he sees me as his enemy and began to conflict with my edits, throwing mud at me. (i think he is getting obsessed with me)

My second complaint about him is his racism and his nonsense slander on calling me associated with a terrorist organisation. If you go to the page you can definitely see that he is saying those words; (I began to suspect that KazekageTR is a Turkish-speaking Kurd (probably associated with the PKK or DHKP-C, etc, i.e. an "extreme-left" militant organization) whose sole intent is to deface Turkey-related articles.). (by the way I've a Meskhetian Turk origin) First of all, i've made huge improvements on Turkey-related articles. For example i've completely renewed the page Modern equipment and uniform of the Turkish Army and significant edits on Turkey etc.. Secondly, i've got very upset because of a comment like that. I'm not a terrorist and no one calls me a terrorist one way or another. And what he did is racism and totally not acceptable.

Thank you for your consideration. KazekageTR (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting notification of this thread: "Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And check your watchlist you racist."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's the WP:CANVASSING: and .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an exception for notifying concerned editors; I think that being called an "asshole" without provocation makes me one of them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the way that i've notified him cause i was very angry at the moment. And about those two users, they were the ones who recently got problem with Lord pf Rivendelll. I've simply asked help for my first complaint. There is nothing wrong with it. And did you read my compliants by the way? KazekageTR (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were angry, you should have used the default notification message ({{ani-notice}}) to avoid showing bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has been accurate in his complaints. Rivendell's behaviour has made it very challenging for other editors to make any contributions to the Turkey article, he continuously monopolises the editing space (he has made over 300 edits to that article in less than 50 days) and initiates edit wars when "his" revision is altered. His unwillingness to reach a consensus for his sweeping changes is made much worse by his evident battleground mentality (see diff, diff, diff), which is ultimately the bigger problem here. To Rivendell everything is a confrontation, he may leave forever one day only to carry on his battling the next.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Although KazekageTR is right in his complaints, he may be wrong in the way that he phrased his complaints. Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i don't think that me calling him as a racist isn't bad. Cause he sees the issue of being a Kurd as a something to get 'suspected' and i believe that is racism. Are we on the same page here User:Epicgenius?? And if you check the edit histories of those pages we've conflicted in (especially in Turkey), you will see that i was understandable, patient and tolerant to him. I've always stated those Misplaced Pages rules that he wasn't obeying in my edit summary or in the talk page. By the way because i was reverting his reckless edits, he started to be my enemy(like i said on the top) and opened up a section here in order to block me from editing. The admin found me innocent and warned him instead. After one/two weeks from that event, he got blocked. KazekageTR (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are on the same page, but you shouldn't assume bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If i was assuming bad faith, things would go way different believe me mate. By the way thank you for your interest, we can use your thoughts on this issue, of course if you state them... KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, but I find that it's better to get over having "enemies" if you want to continue to be a productive editor on Misplaced Pages. I understand that there are going to be times when you feel challenged and provoked, but try to not get caught up in revenge, squabbling and holding grudges. If it gets really bad, work on different articles on WP and keep your distance. Having enemies can be a quick way to slide into edit warring which can result in a block or, eventually, an indefinite block. When it comes down to "disruptive editing", admins don't want to spend time sorting out who is right and who is wrong, they'll just block your account because of your behavior, not the content of your edits. Liz 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My "problem"s with Lord of Rivendell have been limited to normal editing disputes, I have not encountered the personal attacks noted above. I do agree with KazekageTR that throwing around Kurd as an insult is not a positive trait. On the editing front, it is true that Lord of Rivendell makes long series of edits, but it's also true (as they pointed out on Talk:Turkey) that they in the past reverted edits by others which were just copy-pastes into the article from other articles made without attribution. In general, it would be useful if the talkpage was more used in conjunction with editing (and it has begun to be more used lately). I get the feel of increasing escalation over the past month. Lord of Rivendell should be strongly informed that throwing around insults is not an action conductive to a collegial editing environment (KazekageTR I assume has taken note that reacting by calling someone racist is not the most helpful move), and from that point if editors manage to keep a cool head and discuss things, I see no need for immediate blocks. CMD (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not limited to Rivendell, but calling someone a Kurd as an insult is pretty racist.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not suggesting any action actually be taken against KazekageTR for that outburst, and wouldn't even if they hadn't gone back and changed it. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well User talk:Liz, so you're saying that provocation is something like 's*hit happens' ??. You cant just insult or try to insult a person like that. I can call you a terrorist and 'suspect' that you are a Jew and it is okay too? Look at he is provoking me again by the way.

And that section is not just about this insulting thing, if you check my first compliant you'll see that he is not a cooperative person and often making trouble that bothers us all. By the way it wasn't just happened now, it happened so many times. Please refer to Turkey article for further information.KazekageTR (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not restricted to any one editor, I'm not singling out Rivendell or anyone else because I have seen this kind of behavior too often while contributing to Turkey-related articles to dismiss it as an individual flaw of character. But all too often when someone makes an edit to an article about Turkey, they will come across someone who will say, you have added/removed this and that to make our country look bad, you must be a Kurd! I don't know Kazekage's ethnic origin and I don't want to know it, but I can imagine that having to read such mindless tripe can make even the most level-headed editors lose their cool. So when someone retorts that this is racism, it might not be ideal editing behavior, but does it mean that they are to blame? Is that what our admins seriously think?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR, this is just my personal point of view. Go ahead, call me a terrorist, I know that I'm not and it makes you look ridiculous for using over-the-top language. However, if you are calling me a terrorist because you think I'm Jewish, then you (or any editor) is guilty not only for being ridiculous but showing bias and not having a neutral point of view.

But, and I think this is where we differ, although no one likes people to say hostile and negative things to them online, insults do not affect what I think of myself. If someone attacked me, I'd report it if it was a personal attack (as defined by Misplaced Pages policy), not because it hurt my feelings. If someone attacks you, it reflects badly on them, not you. And, I'm guessing, that most longtime editors at Misplaced Pages do not believe insults thrown around on WP because it's a sign of an immature editor and one who will get a warning and perhaps a limited block. Do not feel like you have to respond to insults unless they cross the line into a personal attack. Otherwise, I'd recommend rising above it and keep focusing on editing, not getting into personal grudges. You'll be happier, too, if you have a thicker skin. Liz 20:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well how about that. He is teasing me again User:Liz, check , it is a personal attack indeed. Do you need any further proofs ?

• The question you asked proves that you are not a Turk.

I think this is an unnecessary edit summary and I would call it an insult (that is, if you are Turkish, I don't know) but not as an personal attack. I think this merits a warning on his user talk page but unless this is continued harassment over a period of time, it's unlikely to earn him/her a block. Liz 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear and direct personal attack. It's a direct continuation of his accusation (so to speak) that KazekageTR is a Kurd. Furthermore, the idea shown by the editor, that one shouldn't be editing the article simply due to ones origins, is not a collaborative attitude. CMD (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a really serious crime in the terms of law as you know. That is pure racism, fascism. Well I dont know what the hell he wants from my ancestorial backgorund(I already said him im not Kurd, my family has Meskhetian Turk origin.) And CMD is totally right. He is reverting my edits because he is obsessed with my race. That is totally unacceptable.

Whooa he is on an edit spree again () and he does not obey the rules that we made on talk page. Now he is typing Turkish,to his summary 'Herşey yalan, bunlar gerçek' which means 'Everything is lie, these are truth.'(). It is an edit which violates. Do you need further proofs to say that he is not cooperative person mate? Are you just going to say ok to his senseless edits/comments/trash talks ? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT KazekageTR (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on his edits on the Turkey article but just looking over his contributions, he does leave some hostile and taunting remarks in his edit summaries to other editors that warrants a warning from an admin.

But I don't agree with your accusations of "fascism" and as far as "racism"? As far as I know, Turks and Kurds are different ethnic groups, not races. I don't see the insult but I agree that trying to identify the ethnic background of editors and imply that this is the basis of bias is inappropriate and has no place on Misplaced Pages. Liz 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My first complaint about him was his reckless edits like i said. He is not clicking the undo button but reverts our edits manually(i believe he does it for avoiding another block). I've summoned CMD and Underlying lk as victims of his edit sprees on Turkey article.

We often use racism with fascism(like idioms) in Turkish language, thats why i wrote racism too(i know it is not applicable in this situation).

As you have noticed, it is a personal harassment and it is a very disturbing one indeed, and it is wrong to get obbsessed with someones ethnical backgorund and imply that in a bad way. That is not something to get along with. KazekageTR (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Somali editor User:Middayexpress doesn't want human rights mentioned on Somalia page

Hi, I'm having some problems. I stumbled upon an editor who it seems is a long-time guard of pages related to Somalia.

User:Middayexpress does not like references to the page Human rights in Somalia being made on other Somalia pages. I don't know what the editors motivation is.

I think this is pretty unreasonable. Hey, it might be OK in Somalia, but this is wikipedia.

Thank you, Zoompte (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The newly registered Zoompte account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked User:Andajara120000. The trademark breathless edits, anti-religious pov, anti-Somali/anti-Ethiopian pov, and obsession with associating the Tutsi Bantus with Nilo-Saharan populations are all the same. Identical obscure edits on the same otherwise quiet pages as well (see for example here and here). He's also clearly quite familiar with Misplaced Pages protocols, unlike actual newbies. Middayexpress (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not anti-Somali. Well, I might be now, after meeting you. :) Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New user (or old person with new account) can you please provide me with the evidence of you trying to use the TK page to resolve this matter. You are reporting something but you are engaged in an edit war against what looks like a stable article. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi yes, I've written on the talk page for Somalia. Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as the one where you wrote "Repaired content removed by a Somali Muslim editor" are unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Zoompte (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we are to focus on content and not the contributors.

Please take sock allegations to WP:SPI. They have the tools to confirm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, hat has already been done. AcidSnow (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Unrelated, according to CU. Middayexpress, I'm afraid you can't simply revert with the sock accusation. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for CU; a clerk felt that the difs were compelling enough to warrant one. Socking was also not the main reason I and the other editors reverted, as we explained elsewhere. It was actually pov-pushing (e.g. labeling a 1909 map of British East Africa as "British Kenya", though British Kenya was actually established over a decade later, in 1920). Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend IBAN for TreCoolGuy and TDFan2006

These two have been at it for months, and even with TreCoolGuy's recent block, TDFan2006 intentionally left bordering-on-harassment messages on Tre's talk page. Additionally, TDFan2006 has consistently reminded TreCoolGuy of a previous SPI, and previously added a note to his own user page that he was keeping an eye on TreCoolGuy. These conversations have led me to highly recommend an IBAN between these two users, as very few (if any) of their interactions have been positive. See , (the DrummerSL is a nod at the SPI), and after Tre removed the nod, TDFan replied with this, , (which was later reverted. For what it's worth, the interactions largely seem to be TDFan2006 finding ways to provoke TreCoolGuy. gsk 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just trying to make Tre feel like a guilty bast... whoops, gotta be careful about what I say. Anyway, I'm not just trying to make Tre be guilty, I was just saying that his comment wasn't really civil, he should change comments via guidelines and that he has been confirmed a sock... uhh.. oh yeah, a sock master. TDFan2006 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are not "bordering-on-harassment", they are harassment. See m:Don't be a dick (no that is not an insult, it's a link to an essay on obnoxious behavior) and leave TreCoolGuy alone. -- John Reaves 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you being bias and just being on Tre's side? TDFan2006 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt there's a bias or "being on sides" if more than one editor notices your behavior. Of course, saying things like "guilty bast..." do not help your situation at all. gsk 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not In fact, I’ve blocked him before, that’s why I even saw your edits on my watchlist. -- John Reaves 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come on, everyone calm down. Was TreCoolGuy's comment on my talkpage civil? No, not even slightly; it was pure trolling, hence why I removed it. I probably could've said my bit a bit more neutrally, but there we go. TDFan2006, you need to back off TCG, and I suggest unwatching his talk page and refraining from commenting there unless invited. It is fair to note that TDFan has only ever commented on TCG's talk page once outside of this topic; which was . Not particularly nice, but understandable. I think this is Much Ado About Nothing, at least for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would like a permanent interaction ban from TDFan2006 for harassment. He keeps on reminding me that I'm a sockpuppeter and asked me which you can check on my talk page You have been confirmed a sockmaster. Why haven't they blocked you?... He told me on his talk page which I questioned him about was why he said that he was keeping an eye on me and another user. Which is very stalker like words to say. Then just recently TDfan went to my talk page and called me DrummerSP. Personally I don't like to be reminded about the mistakes I have made in the past but he keeps on bringing it up. So please put a permanent block on him. - TreCoolGuy, 19 February 2014
• I'm having a look at this as well. The comments here by TDFan are way out of line, that's for sure. But I'd like to find out something else first--Admrboltz, what precisely was the reason for the last block? I looked through a whole bunch of TreCoolGuy's edits and didn't see the vandalism, though I saw what could be considered not OK, maybe. They asked you twice on their talk page for the reason and didn't get an answer, and I'm curious myself. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I thought this was odd too, and when looking through Tre's recent edits, I couldn't find a justification for the block either. gsk 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block itself was justified to some degree (although probably a little later than it should've been) - the vandalism occurred when they slapped the block tag on Rusted Auto Part's user page, but that was a while ago. Unconstructive editing, however, is what they should've been blocked for (and the gem on my talkpage is only one example of that.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, TDFan just took a break, which could be very convenient. We're not going to block TDFan, though I see no reason why we can't tell them that they should stop these "reminders"; GSK has already pointed out that this is harassment. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking a wikibreak until tomorrow. I just felt a bit uncomfortable. TDFan2006 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, doesn't look like Tre deserved the block. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that Admrboltz is back after a few days off. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry... New job has been keeping me busy. In reviewing the block, I believe I may have erred in judgement. The user was originally reported to WP:AIV but in reviewing the edits closer, I was in error. --AdmrBoltz 04:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for reviewing. I'd appreciate it, and I think TreCoolGuy would too, if you left them a note. As for the matter at hand, TDF has apologized on TCG's talk page. I don't see much reason for an IBAN, if there ever was enough for such a heavy-handed measure as an IBAN (I doubt this), to enact one now. This thread is fizzling out but it would be nice if both editors came back here with a comment or two and we can settle this and file the paperwork. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass IP spamming on AFD

ON #wikipedia-en-help an helper directed my attention to this AFD discussion which seems to have multiple IPs Spamming Keep. Given that Geolocate places the Ips to Israel this seems like a classic case of IP hoping. I propose that this AFD is semi-protected .--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I only see three "keep" comments from IP users in that AfD, and two of those are from the same IP address. The appearance of only two different IP address users in a discussion doesn't seem to be a "mass" amount of IP-hopping that would require semi-protection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's a third keep now also from an unsigned IP user, very similar language in the Keep justification, but now from a mobile device in Tel Aviv rather than a desktop device in northern Tel Aviv. I suspect Jeffrd10 is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's also a German IP, so I don't know that they're all the same person. Unless there's a deluge of IPs though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. -- Atama頭 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are however at least three in Tel Aviv - and they seem to be keeping at it. And they seem to be SPAs.Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would say it's likely that if they're not all the same person they're at least meatpuppets. It's pretty rare to see IP users participate in deletion discussions for articles they didn't create themselves, and add to that that this article was created two days ago, it seems unlikely that there's such a mass of "foot traffic" that three random people would all happen upon it, then make nearly identical comments. I think it's telling that the first IP user (the one who created the page) made two totally different comments in the article. Likely that was before he realized that his IP would be visible and he was hoping to pretend to be more than one person.

That said, it's not like these discussions are majority rules, so it doesn't really matter how many times they !vote. If anything it's hurting their case. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these IP addresses, though, since it's pretty blatant puppetry of some sort. 0x0077BE 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to make the same suggestion. Sometimes a bad "keep" argument just strengthens the "delete" arguments. And if the IPs come up with good arguments to keep the article, then their argument should be heard. The only time we need to be concerned is if the AfD gets flooded and turns it into a mess. I wouldn't want to be the admin to sort through that when closing. (I won't be since I !voted already but still.) -- Atama頭 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP votes aren't exactly relentless or anything, but they don't seem to be abating. Is there any precedent for grouping all the IP votes together, or does that seem like it's stacking the deck too much? I know in RfCs sometimes they group by support/keep. Doing that would have the same effect as grouping the IP votes together, since all keep votes (save one) are from IP users. 0x0077BE 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen IP !votes grouped together. Generally we let them stay as they're added in a deletion discussion, and let them stay as-is, though you can strike multiple !votes from the same editor, or strike !votes from a banned user or sockpuppet of a blocked user (essentially, strike any !votes that are improper). That's already being done, so we should be good. -- Atama頭 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 75.52.186.148

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

We have an evident problem with IP 75.52.186.148 (contributions ), who seems to have been spreading highly dubious WP:OR throughout multiple articles for some time (mostly relating to Germany, freemasonry, Ayrians and the usual conspiracy-theory hogwash). Given that this IP is now making bizarre accusations regarding User:Paul Barlow , I think a block is a foregone conclusion. I'd also suggest a rollback of all the IP's 'contributions' would be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask Gnostrat, etc. if I have been an unhelpful presence here. I have created tons of articles and supplemented others of low quality with the knowledge I have - simply lacking a library in my hands at every millisecond.

So my judicial murder is a foregone conclusion? That is the jurisprudence of Misplaced Pages?

I am willing to mellow out and follow the policies concerning original research. I have nothing to be ashamed of - the fringe and "evil"-type subjects I deal with is a form of personal psycho-catharsis in my own quest for understanding the problem of evil. I demonstrate utterly lucidity of intellect, and to constantly disparage and depersonalize me in belittling, scornful terms, and be "monitored" by P.I.'s, I find ridiculous.

Is the editorial council here prepared to even listen to me...?

There is no evident problem. Is this an examination or as you said, a "foregone conclusion"?

A rollback is simply gratuity of meanness. The ratio of quality versus negativity I have created is highly tilted in my favor.

Your personal lack of proper emotional detachment unfortunately similarly urges me to ask for any OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE assessor or "justiciar" to supplant you. Good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)

Are all of the 75.52.186.148 edits yours ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland - NO. I believe both myself and those who personally dislike me here are trying to figure out what is happening. I personally am computer-illiterate. I believe my I.P. is not static.

I shall abide by the registration suggestion given here, in order to make less complex some of the confusion, the next time I contribute.

On the other hand, ill-mannered and belligerent, bullying psy-ops tactics to silence others on the part of individuals or editorial syndicates, I firmly do not believe is moral and ethical.

Below, I do not even know what this individual is talking about... "Banned editor?" How could I even type this then?

Then choosing to accelerate things and pretend I am a fringe conspiracy-theorist and anti-Semite, a mental fallacy Misplaced Pages must uproot. I was not referring to Judaism, but the British nationality of the editor, in puckish or impish affect. The tone did not come out right across the Internet.

shall correct my imperfections, and perhaps others can be less imperious, on the other hand?

Does that sound fair?

Next time I edit an article, I, beforehand, shall obtain a registered account and cite and substantiate all nice and scholastic.

But no psy-ops can be hatched against me simply because I am a controversialist. And we know even editorial councils are not beyond human imperfection. No injustice is all I ask. Is that fair?

Thank you for preventing judicial murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014 (UTC)‎

"monitored by P.I.s"? Look, despite my high position among the Elders of Anglo-Zion I haven't a clue who you are. If I have been reverting your edits for ten years, as you claim, that's probably because your behaviour has been unchanged over that period. Assuming you are not a banned editor, your best approach is to create a username and to prepare contributions with citations supporting your assertions. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at a couple of edits and HFS, that's some dense talk, with sentences that are hard to parse: "Germanenorden...was an intransigently right-wing, anti-Judeo-Masonic, völkisch secret society and simultaneously, in the deeper degrees of the society of monied officers capable of supplying arms and munitions, a "crypto-guerrilla" or atypical counter-espionage vigilance committee", that's bad already, but this edit (in Beati Paoli), is incomprehensible: check the paragraph starting "In 1071", for such pearls as "Scientific documentation in either direction relating to these questions is utterly befogged; and myth and reality blended so intricately, objective conclusions meet scholarly limitations". Dangling and ambiguous modifiers are all over the place, every noun needs an adjective needs an adverb needs another adverb--holy moly. But yes, at heart, in terms of Wiki policy, is the problem of reliably sourcing these edits, and one wonders if such statements are ever verified. The various personal attacks are just that, hot air, but disruptively so. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You do not assume a neutral tone here, Sir. Please try to be civil.

I shall try when I open an account to render my bad style and bad lexicon into "popularized" acceptable accessibility, alright? Do you know that not every person on earth had English as their first language? I shall improve, but in an atmosphere of hostility where I am not given the chance, the greater disruption belongs to those who lack objectivity of perception such as yourself. You disrupt my attempt to civilly deal with this, and I do no appreciate it -

The content they are adding, despite being pure walls of unparsable text, is unencyclopaedic. It's the contents of essays or dissertations, not an encyclopaedia, and is full of original research, individuals analysis and purely conclusions the editor has come to presented erroneously as fact. I also note that in November they "abandon Misplaced Pages in despair," so not sure why they're back. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of the conspiratorial nonsense being posted by this IP can be found in the history of our Dextroamphetamine article:

"As of the moment, the Russian-Israeli mafia criminal enterprise operation, half-Mossad, half-McMafia in personnel, masked as the corporate cartel "TEVA" has achieved gangland supremacy in its diversion and distribution activities done in the shadows; and all the more creditably, TEVA has wrestled against the FDA in victory; and now openly celebrates its anarchistic piracy morality of materialistic profiteering in its conquering manipulation of the generic ADHD, psychostimulant market in America, and now holds sovereign robber-baron imperial possession to price-gouge and skyrocket to infinity the DEXEDRINE of old, once the balm to confused minds of suffering individuals. One can only bow in obeisant submission unto TEVA."

I cannot see how anyone who thinks that Misplaced Pages is an appropriate platform for such drivel could possibly become a useful contributor. The IP has incidentally also come to the notice of Wikiproject:Philosophy as a result of dubious edits to our article on Schopenhauer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Every time I reply, my words are deleted. What is this? I am asking for fairness.

I did not write the stuff about TEVA. I am not interested in pharmaceuticals.

Why am I not being allowed to even have a fair hearing? This is crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014 (UTC)‎

The section title "collapsed section" of the talk page of Dextroamphetamine contains the following statement which seems consistent with the conspiracy theories you have been outlining today:

I am half-Jewish and half-Central European, so the "anti-Semitic" nonsense please do not even initiate with me, Wikipedians of ideological extremism. I can outshine and outgeneral in cerebral dialectics of counter-propaganda programming and deprogramming, generate psychological influence and unleash psy-warfare most of humankind except elite special forces cannot handle. I am speaking to you, the "frequently contributing" dominant minority of Zionist cyber-guerrillas wielding editorial-managerial power, unfortunately endlessly trying to schizophrenically scramble all objectively forthright discussion of any and all "Jewish cultural affairs", as a psy-op military tactic."

Is the above passage written by you? Paul B (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're just falling victim to edit conflicts, that's all. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? Edit conflict my eye. YOU removed a chunk of his words with this edit only just over an hour ago. His editing is problematic, sure, but he was asked a question and was entitled to answer it. I restored it. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, edit conflict. Took me three tries to get my comment in as I kept getting edit conflicts and mine were disappearing. Yes it looks bad, but edit conflicts can cause that unfortunately. I would never remove someone's comment like that, everyone is entitled to say their piece. Canterbury Tail talk 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Edit conflicts do that sometimes. Particularly on busy pages like WP:ANI. Please don't confuse matters with unnecessary accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this post yours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I am now being subject to DNS attacks and viruses violently. I do not know what is happening but this does not reflect well on Misplaced Pages. Moriori was honorable enough to fairly and equitably notice the little bit he could of whatever is happening... I am retiring for the moment.

To repeat: it appears as if a complex game of impersonation and sophisticated manipulation, among other things, is operative. I am not a pharmacist.

Misplaced Pages, sort yourself out. Now I have to get my computer fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a static IP to me. It's been editing Julius Evola since October 2012, a pattern of large additions and deletions of content is constant from the beginning, with the added content being very dense. Sorry, editing about Evola since July 2011. - edits about Special Forces, repeatedly talking about anti-Semitism, it's the same person all along. I think that most of his edits have been reverted as unsourced. I don't believe the statement that he/she didn't write the edit mentioning Teva. I think a nice long block is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I have circumvented the cyber-attacks (I shall not mentioned whence derived these missiles), but there is no consistency of subject-matter, no ideational clustering validating any stasis of chronicity. If you look into the I.P.'s past, he/she was advocating pedophilia rights and violent Stalinism one month, and then talking about widely disparate subjects, radical right groups, etc., another: your emotionally-driven campaign to terminate my presence is not juridically substantive.

As my I.P. is bouncy, I suppose you can ban this one I am temporarily on - but one day I shall come back on a stable connection in hardcore university doctorate mode with a credible registered account, and my controversies I fearlessly plunge into I shall not fail to explore: you are merely trying to repressively assign me utlagatus status because I occasionally delve into un-PC topics. No grounds for banning, sorry.

I see many of the actual edits I made have now been summarily deleted. I suppose the judicial lynching is proceeding behind-close-doors appropriately. The truth will always win, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced, incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, essay-like original research will almost always be deleted, as it should. BMK (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, regardless of any other issues, anyone who writes about "ideational clustering validating stasis of chronicity" deserves to be blocked from Misplaced Pages (and probably the entire internet) for crimes against the English language. On the plus side, such prolix bollocks is easy enough to spot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Prolixity is not an ethical defect. Being a knave for the sake of being a brutal knave bullying others, is. I ask whoever is in power to curtail the endless ad hominem thrust against me by these persons.

Nope. I indicated my deficiency above and agreed to "reform" - now people are merely treating me like a caged beast, picking on me like children. I say: you can ban this I.P., but my drive for truth and fearlessness shall never die; and I shall strive to spread the truth of things to others according to my limits.

I do not know why there is a discussion right now, except for the excessive animosity of one or two individuals. I have agreed to pacifically reform and register, "mechanized", the next time I do so -

Please, study the I.P. history thoroughly, it is INSANE. Obviously not one personality. How can you go from advocating pedophilia (!), Leninist socialism and violent communism to being the Julius Evola apologist extraordinaire? The rationale fails here as a criterion of judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we've had editors before who are just playing with Misplaced Pages/us. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure they're not here to do anything but entertain themselves. This has to be an act. -- Atama頭 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the IP's history makes entire sense if all the editor is trying to do is harm the encyclopedia for the lulz. BMK (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. If you've been editing for ten years, as you say you have, you should have learned to do that by now. You type four "tildes" (~~~~) at the end of your posts and the ip address and date comes up automatically. You can create a user identity at any time. Like now. However, like Dougweller, I'm afraid I have to say that I do not find your assertions that you are not the same editor who contributed to Dextroamphetamine credible. The language and the preoccupations are identical. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's the same person, no doubt. BMK (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the edit history of the IP, it doesn't really matter whether the same person is responsible for the 'pedophilia' edits - the fact is that the edits coming from the IP now are entirely incompatible with Misplaced Pages policy regarding original research. And of course incompatible with any encyclopaedia which had any wish to be comprehensible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the Geolocate report says that the IP is static. BMK (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. NE Ent 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) This is not an article. (2) The behavioral and inguistic evidence is unambiguous. BMK (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, "counselors", I munificently offer myself up as your scapegoat: ban this I.P. address in utter lunacy animated by nothing but unreasonable personal emotionalism. I can toggle things, learn things, and return in better form one day. Your action will have accomplished nothing. Are any of you even "officers of rank" here? I hardly can imagine the possibility. Your procedural irregularities and lack of professionalism, you have shown the world to your own dishonor. No good-willed person would seek to ban me, perhaps explain the formatting precisions and tiny bits of stylistic regularity to be conformed to, but banning a person out of nowhere?

I have no more words. I am interested if any of you fellows are actual "jurisprudence" figures or "justices", however...

Mock the caged beast - who is the real troll? Yuck it up, real impressive. Karma exists, the world sees your pettiness of spirit and lack of equity.

Oh no, I am not American English by birth, curse my inferior blood! Thus my diction and lexicon and verbose meandering can be dense and difficult and almost unintelligible at times - yet, it is still better to be a good-willed person who lacks rhetorical sophistic skill than a mere amoral rhetorician of a dessicated scholarship. Ban me for a day, a week, over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, good God what an achievement of heroes you men-folk erected to the God of Victory this day!

And I thought Abd had some massive posts ... Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I've read a lot on AN/I, angry posts, apologetic posts, accusatory posts but nothing so over-the-top ("the God of Victory"?!). If you are not a troll, well, you have an inflated sense of importance. I think people would be less harsh to you if you accepted some responsibility that what you wrote wasn't appropriate for a public, online encyclopedia along with a knowledge of the Manual of Style and WP guidelines and policies. We're all just editors here, even admins, and a little humility can lead to good-will.

P.S. I think your densely worded, opinionated prose is more appropriate for a book you might write one day, not WP which is for a general reader with a basic knowledge of English. Liz 23:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A self-published book, perhaps. BMK (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nice Sanhedrin eye-poke, I needed that, appreciate it, fair assessor. {{xsign}20:02, 21 February 2014‎ 75.52.186.148}}

I endorse an indefinite block (or the static-IP equivalent thereof). The contributions are gibberish and many of them, to the extent understandable, are alarming. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above. The individual seems to view reality outside American materialist sensate culture, and thus should be forthwith liquidated. I am contacting the FBI riot squad paramilitaries right now as I type this to make sure this high-risk individual is suitably watched by the governmental sentries and hopefully permanently chained for such irresponsible individuality. In fact, indefinite banning is too weak: sempiternal shall be the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Block per WP:NOTHERE, please. BMK (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Diannaa and I blocked for 1 year at the same time; Diannaa won. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Special thanks go out to Beyond My Ken and AndyTheGrump for assisting with the clean-up. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Some communication issue?

I know this is known as a dramaboard and I really don't want to cause any. However, I'm not in the habit of asking for admin assistance offline.
Request: Could a genuinely conciliatory admin kindly take a look at the communication issues in my most recent interactions? I'm afraid I've got a bit hot under the collar: this interaction (thoroughly gf no doubt on both sides) to me feels subjectively unfortunate and objectively wrong. Thank you, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll get a better response if you provide "diffs" (examples) of what you are concerned about and why so they don't have to guess. Are you reporting yourself? It's not clear what the problem is. Liz 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little unfortunate that the IP has felt the need to come here; the interactions have been with me, as far as I'm aware (I haven't looked into any of the IP's history, because there's been no need to, so I'm not aware of any other issues). I think it's more a case of a simple misunderstanding, rather than anything else. The relevant discussion is at User talk:XLinkBot#Massive reversion at Savart wheel, where the bot reverted an addition of a YouTube link as part of an otherwise constructive list of edits by the IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that thread and the related reversions etc. While recognizing that Luke94 intends no harm (gf), for me this has been something of a put down, apparently based on a personal interpretation of a guideline/practice, which seems to me authoritarian and unjustified. Although not key to the page, the implicated link was most certainly a constructive edit for reasons I have explained 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I'd like to think that I'm generally conciliatory (I try to be at least). I understand that the intent was to improve the Savart wheel article by linking to a video hosted by YouTube that showed such a wheel in action. I understand the motivation behind the action. I believe that the both of you were correct in your arguments, in that our current external links guideline allows for such links under particular circumstances, yet Lukeno94 pointed out that in practice the community has come to dislike links to YouTube from articles. In my experience that is true, and I actually expected the guideline to have been updated but it hasn't

I think that there are two problems here; one is the discrepancy between common practice and our guideline, which should be addressed at WT:EL and possibly may only be resolved with a full request for comments for the community to decide definitively whether or not to outright ban YouTube video links from articles. Until and unless that occurs, the short term solution is to decide whether or not the video is proper to include for that article, which should be decided at the article talk page.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a bot that is removing links that are allowed to exist on Misplaced Pages in a guideline. That must be frustrating to editors. -- Atama頭 23:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehension of the situation and the informative analysis. Yes, in this case I've it really frustrating. I had no idea that carefully chosen YouTube links were now discouraged. (Fwiw, I really hate conflict with gf editors.) 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: Running an "anti-vandal" bot can place an editor in a position of real power with respect to other gf editors, including ips. I feel that such power needs to be exercised with special care. Making gf editors feel they're being treated on a par with unconstructive ips can be a real put down (especially when, as in the present case, it's the only feedback you've received for your work). I think anyone running such a bot needs to be aware of such communication issues. In the present case, for example, I was told that the guideline effectively didn't count ("full stop"). Such an argument leaves one wondering how the heck one's supposed to seek guidance for one's editorial decisions. I also found the tone of the comments quite condescending, and the double use of reversions -- one (i.e. just 1RR) by the bot, followed by one (1RR) by the user -- somewhat inappropriate. All told, for this editor at least, not a good experience. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: I'm also curious to know whether the massive reversion of all my edits (not just the implicated EL) is part of the bot's regular behaviour (perhaps with ips?), or whetrher there is some other technical glitch. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is indeed the bot's standard method to "rollback" all edits by the same user in this cycle, as I explained earlier. This is to stop any intermediate edits by the same user from deliberately blocking the reversion. In your case, it unfortunately leads to the removal of a lot of improvements for one bad EL. 1RR is not relevant here (it isn't in force in this article, and reverting once does not an edit war make, despite what your revert's edit summary stated), and I'm not seeing how my edit summaries were condescending; they were short and to the point. What I said about the guideline is also accurate, as Atama confirmed; Misplaced Pages is a constantly-evolving organism, and this creates some gaps where policies and guidelines do not have the wording to match current practice. I suggest you read User:XLinkBot/FAQ, 86, to see exactly why the bot acts the way it does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think the mass reversion was, as I think you recognise, unfortunate here (though of course in practice no more than a minor shock) and I think it called for some apology, however brief. My point about 1RR is that by reverting twice, once with your bot and once as a human user, you were effectively able to put me under 3RR. I cannot accept the argument about the primacy of "standard practice", as that is blatantly unfair to gf users who follow guidelines, while prefering for the most part to stay out of internal Misplaced Pages discussions. As regards what I perceived as a "condescension", I understand that you do not perceive it in the same way (online communication between people who don't know each other is almost invariably tricky). Fwiw, I'm referring to statements such as I'm not going to click on a YouTube link in an article. Or a Tumblr link in an article. Neither should be there, full stop. This was a carefully selected EL and you weren't prepared to take a moment to look at it, justifying your bot's automated actions on a highly personal interpretation of guidelines/practice for which there is no general consensus. And then you expect me to read the technical blurb for your bot...? Well, actually I'd prefer to try to get some sleep and get my blood pressure back down... 86.173.146.3 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see exactly where most of this confusion has come from. The bot is not mine; I just happen to have its talk page on my watchlist, for reasons that I cannot remember, and I was the first to spot it and respond to the case (I've seen similar issues to this happen before). As I've said several times, I do very much appreciate the work you put into that article, which is why I was equally careful not to hit the revert button when you reverted the bot, but simply removed the offending links, which I removed based on my experience of consensus here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Luke. I feel I'm beginning to understand the dynamics of this. Involved individuals apart, I think this discussion has thrown up some general questions:

• Is it right for a bot to remove, by default, a series of obviously constructive contributions?
• Is it acceptable for a bot and its operator/s user/s to enforce an unofficial interpretation of policy which is not present in the guidelines?
• Is it reasonable to expect operators users of bots such as this one (aimed at preventing unconstructive editing) to take the time examine, at least to some extent, the editorial implications of the issues the bot has detected -- especially after they have been challenged by the contributor -- before insisting on enforcement by repeatedly removing the implicated content?

Finally, I specifically wish to communicate to Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia that if this sort of unpleasant situation is an editor's reward for developing a page in this way, then I'm damn glad I've chosen to edit as an ip (thereby making me largely immune to malicious profiling by third parties). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• A bot cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad" beyond what it is programmed for. In this case, XLinkBot is programmed to deal with links, and nothing else; ClueBot deals with the "regular" vandalism. The reason the anti-vandalism bots work in this way is that it stops any vandalism being missed, or made unrevertable due to deliberate manipulation of edits that prevents the removal. Whilst it might be better for XLinkBot to simply remove the bad links, this is not what it was approved to do. The FAQ that I linked to makes a good and understandable case for why things are done in this way. It is acceptable for a bot to enforce "grey areas", because 99% of the time, an IP or new user linking in a YouTube video is doing so for nefarious reasons (self-promotion, general promotion, general spam, flat-out vandalism, etc). It is not reasonable to expect bot operators to examine everything their bot does; at that point, the bot becomes redundant anyway, and many bot runners are semi-active or focus on keeping their bots going (which, given the mess of code that makes up the backbone of Wikimedia-related sites, is no mean feat). If you were an autoconfirmed user, then the bot would probably not interfere with you, unless your link was totally inappropriate. You can, however, request on the bot's talkpage for your IP address to be whitelisted, in order to stop further issues with this bot - if the bot owner agrees to this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• It shoudl also be noted that the vast majority of Youtube links that get put into Misplaced Pages are copyright violations. This is why they're considered a no-no: they make Misplaced Pages a party to contributory copyright infringement. Some are good - ones that are, say, uploaded to an "official" channel - but the majority are not, and sometimes it's hard to tell even what really is official or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The operator user of the bot twice insisted on reremoving the link in person even after I had entered into discussion on the bot's talk page, a) explaining why this is, imo, one of those "good" links that you rightly mention and b) requesting clarification regarding the WP:YOUTUBE guideline which I believe I have followed correctly . For the record, I have now also discussed my rationale on the article talk page, explaining why I believe it is a particularly valuable EL .

Imposing personal interpretations of Misplaced Pages best practice on the basis of personal interpretations such as You tube links should not be included in articles, full stop is I believe "authoritarian" and unhelpful. Refusing to take a moment consider the editorial context (as if the sites linked were somehow beneath the editor's dignity) is I think ungrateful and perhaps (indirectly) insulting to a contributor who has clearly put considerable work into building a small stub based on a single dated source into a rather carefully sourced page regarding a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Is this the sort of feedback one likes to expect when just rounding off two days of work on a serious Misplaced Pages page? Having had little sleep last night following the displeasure, I am now continuing to insist on these points as I think there are broader implications here for Misplaced Pages. Is it really such a good idea to discourage and perhaps, ultimately, drive away constructive content contributors by imposing personalized/social interpretations of Misplaced Pages policy? 86.173.146.3 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Are you simply not reading what I'm writing? I am not the owner of the bot. I have never claimed to be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(no need to shout) I thought that by using the bot you were "operating" it, but I apparently should have used the term "user". Apologies - the terminology here bot teminology is unfamiliar to me. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A review of the edits indicate that 86 is a new editor who is attempting to improve Misplaced Pages (it happens). Adding references. Changing wording. Improving it even. Probably makes more useful mainspace edits than this worthless Ent does in a month. Finds a cool (but probably 30 seconds too long) video online that demonstrates to the Misplaced Pages reader what a Savart wheel looks and sounds like -- and they get this? The instructions atop User talk:XLinkBot clearly say "If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright, you may undo the changes made by XLinkBot." That's the current policy, no matter how many times editors who should know better say "full stop." NE Ent 14:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have anything constructive to add, other than making very sly attacks against me with no basis whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, probably didn't really need to say the last part. Stricken. NE Ent 15:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I should perhaps clarify that I'm not actually a new editor (and I'm not competition here with Ent or anyone else). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User Daicaregos - wikilawyering over basic editing rules

Can an admin here please inform User:Daicaregos of the rules on Misplaced Pages regarding repeatedly editing someone's discussion-page comments against their wishes. I have contacted him, but am now obliged to spend x mins of my life in here (Oh how I love Misplaced Pages, and pages are loading really slowly for me today as well). It's not the biggest thing ever - and I'm half tempted to leave it - but I do think he needs to be told what the rules actually are here, and he's not listening to anyone else: far from it. I'll try and make it as simple as I can to adjudicate, which means a bit more text than a short list of links...

I created a new section on the discussion page of Welsh people HERE (1), and then realised that someone else had already created a section on exactly the same subject directly above mine, probably while I was actually writing mine (I did have to leave my laptop at one point, as I often do). On noticing the duplicate section about 40 mins later (nobody had commented in between) I simply removed my own heading and merged the two, leaving an explanatory 'edit-note' HERE (2) and a little note in brackets on the discussion page too.

This is important here: all the points I addressed in my merged-section's comment exactly related to the heading-title of the section above: they both were about the problematic word "ethnicity". I then extended my comment to address other factors that relate to 'ethnicity' - Bertrand Russell's own preferred identity and the Welsh language in particular - simply because they were part a large edit that I had attempted, all parts of which fully-relate to the "ethnicity" term/issue in the section's introduction. Daicaregos seems to be suggesting that by covering so much I am somehow not playing by the section-merging rules. It does all fully relate though, and I've never heard of such rules anyway. I think this could be an area he doesn't fully understand, but I don't know.

Basically I thought I did something pretty simple, and fully 'by the book' too.

So two hours later (and without asking me first), Daicaregos reinstated my heading HERE (3), with his own note next to it. I wasn't best pleased, so I reverted his change and told him on his talk page HERE (4) that that is against the rules. I asked him not to do it again and told him why. I basically said he had to contact me about things like that, not take it upon himself to do it. I thought that would be the end of it.

Without contacting me at all, Dai then decided to the same thing again, but as a subheading this time HERE (5). Dai was then strongly addressed by User:Ghmyrtle on his talk page HERE (6) - presumably the whole discussion, similar link to 4. For some reason though, Dai is holding his ground on this, as can be seen if you read it. He's 'wikilawyering' to the nth degree, which I actually think is nothing but a waste of people's time. He is also claiming that he is being wronged somehow in all this, by both myself and ghmyrtle (you'll have to read it). Personally I have no interest in arguing with him about it, so I've started this ANI hoping it will be the less of the two time-draining evils. I certainly don't want to get into an 'edit war', so I've left the discussion page as it stands.

--

I will add that on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Misplaced Pages can do without. I've always thought headings should be more formal than the text within need be, and it is highly likely I would have changed the wording of the heading anyway: probably changing the first word "Creepy" to "Misleading" or "Inappropriate overkill in" - though I do genuinely feel encreeped about the matter at hand I'm afraid. Welsh people expressed as a country-wide group cannot be an 'ethnic group' by any logical definition of this seemingly newly-expressed term. There is just too much variation, even amongst the most overtly 'Welsh'. And residents of Anglesey and Cardiff are very different culturally: two very different 'ethnic groups' if you must insist on using the term that way. My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh - and I could also be from Honolulu too for all anyone here knows - and I feel that I and most other Welsh people have been estranged from Misplaced Pages's 'Welsh People' article. The intro has changed a little, but it's still not up to scratch: there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all, nor enough balance regarding the minority-spoken Welsh language (still currently called "its language"). I personally think a lot of blustering goes on to stop the words United Kingdom, Britain or British ever getting in. But anyway, I didn't actually need to adapt any of my heading text at all, only effectively 'merge' my new section into the one above.

If anyone else is a bit perplexed about Dai's behaviour here (ie why do this?), I think it could be possible that he wants to initiate an admin-involved discussion on the various merits of recent comments and edits made specifically by myself. I would argue that this isn't the correct way to go about that, or the best eventual place for it to happen either. For those who might be interested in pursuing that line, it can be noted that an alternative introduction to the article is actually being worked on, one that will hopefully be acceptable to enough attending people - it rarely gets better than that in these areas I'm afraid.

I think people may appreciate it if this ANI at least could be kept to the case in hand: ie to clearly affirm the editing rules for this regard, which is hopefully all that's needed. I am also happy to discuss my position regarding the UK, sovereignty, Britishness and anything related though - either one.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

PS. I'd like to add that I was unhappy to see the edit-note on me forgetting to sign - calling it a 'wall of text'. I did try to make it easier for someone here, and was prepared to wait a bit. Some people do write more than others - that's life I'm afraid: I don't think it's right to comment negatively on that, an that kind of thing can give the ANI-subject confidence too. I haven't been on Wikpidia for quite a while, am actually quite rusty - and that was no-doubt why I forgot to sign. Matt Lewis (talk)

Ok, clearly nothing's happening in here at least, so can someone just tell this guy he's wrong in here about the discussion-page comment-editing rules, so I can remove my unwanted heading again? I really don't want to 'edit war' over a stupid unwanted section heading: it just may be the thing that finally shrivels my mind. You can then presumably close this thing. There's three people now he hasn't listened to, including an admin. Somebody here could at least just tell him not to revert me again. I'm afraid I'm not going to 'back down' and strike the replaced heading like he wants me to, I think that gives entirely the wrong signal here. I just don't want to do it, and I can see myself tomorrow just reverting him again tbh. Or should I just revert it first and see what happens. I don't know. My head hurts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Response from User:Daicaregos

Summary of complaint: Matt began a new thread at Talk:Welsh people. He subsequently decided to remove the section heading believing it relevant to the previous thread ("..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales...", by User:Ghmyrtle. I wanted to respond to Ghmyrtle's post, rather than to Matt's post (of over 4000 bytes), so I reinstated Matt's original heading. Following discussion at my talkpage, I subsequently preserved Matt's original heading (“Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction”) as a subheading.

Defence: This complaint seems to be one of interpretation of Talk page guidelines. The Section headings guideline at WP:TPO, says “It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.”. None of Matt's posts have been deleted, nor have they been changed. Not by me, anyway. Note that that guideline also states that no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. (my emphasis).

Matt's post resulted in a rebuke on his talkpage from Ghmyrtle: “I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant.”. I felt the same, which is why I wanted to keep his rant separate from a post that was likely to improve the article. Matt's response to Ghmyrtle included the claim that “… people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things”. Well, that should include all his words, not just those which, in hindsight, he considers appropriate. As Matt says above, “… on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Misplaced Pages can do without.” Quite. However, Matt is welcome to strike it through if he subsequently considers his words to have been ill-advised or inappropriate, but it is not right that only some editors have the benefit of his stated views.

For reasons best known only to himself, Matt has decided to bring content issues here. While I believe this to be an inappropriate venue for this, I must respond. His misinformed OR/POV views permeate his posts. e.g. “My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh.” (within para 7 of Matt's complaint, above). As so often with Matt's assertions, this is simply untrue. The 2011 census shows 2011 census shows “Nearly two thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011. Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.” Q.E.D. Staying with content for a while, Matt also complains that “... there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all,” (para 7, above). Untrue again. Being part of the UK is not the most notable thing about Welsh people, nor is it true of them all (not all live in the UK or are UK citizens). That is why the UK is not mentioned in the first paragraph. It is, however, in the second paragraph, which states: “Today, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain”.

I was interested to discover (para 8, above) that Matt is working on a new introduction for Welsh People with others, away from, and without notification at, the article talkpage. Sounds rather sinister to me. Shouldn't discussion about article content be open to all? Please advise.

Conclusion: I am sorry this has been brought here, wasting all of our time. Nevertheless, I would welcome a decision on how the WP:TPO guideline should be interpreted in this matter. I would also ask that Matt is requested to add only cited information to articles, and to bare in mind that, while fascinating, people have to spend time reading his rants, so talk page posts should exclude POV and OR and be succinct. Furthermore, I would ask that editors be requested to refrain from making assumptions (Matt, (para 8, above) and Ghmyrtle (at my talkpage) regarding other editors' motivation, which is against WP:AGF. Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dai, people in Wales call themselves 'Welsh' - of course they do. If you ask them if they are British too, then 90% of them say "yes". IT'S NOT SCOTLAND, where between a quarter and third generally do not see themselves as British - it could be rising, we'll see by September. Your figure of '200,000 British' are people who just put down British, of the 2 million in the census (ironically I think I actually put 'Welsh', and told the guy who picked it up it wasn't clear which to put: he responded a bit oddly, by saying it will all be online next time.) The famously Welsh-speaking island of Anglesey has the kind of stats you are alluding to, where 66% of residents there said they are 'Welsh only', and 10% said 'Welsh and British'. Presumably most of the other 24% were either English, Scottish etc or just 'British'. That says everything you need to know. And yes, that island of the North of Wales could indeed be independent in another world, as it has a clear 'Welsh only' majority -- and that's one reason Wales has no single "ethnicity" in this 'modern' sense of the term. Dai, you want to call us all in Wales a single "ethic group", but it doesn't work. I'm one of a no-doubt minority in Wales who just (or generally, really) only refer to myself as 'British', but that doesn't make me any less Welsh! You are constantly trying to hide this diversity in Misplaced Pages articles, usually by attempting (and often succeeding) in removing the word 'British', or even 'United Kingdom'. I'm so tired of it. I've even had a year or so out and I'm tired of it. As people can probably see, it's actually making my head spin!

I've put my proposed new introduction to others outside of the discussion page largely because you are such a disruptive presence there, and frankly in all these areas regarding UK nationality. It might be me who eventually loses my temper, but I've never been the disruptive force. I essentially get called a 'POV-pusher' for telling people that apples are apples, and I get angry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review this block

I blocked 174.118.124.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for chopping content repeatedly from Cost of electricity by source; it looked like vandalism and I blocked on that basis. I now see though that they made some kind of garbled reason for removal in the edit summary of their fourth revert, so perhaps this shouldn't be treated as vandalism? On the other hand, they made some rather odd claims at their talk page. I am going to bed and if anyone feels that my block was harsh or that semi-protection would be a better way forward and that the IP user understands how we work, they can unblock without further input from me. Any feedback gratefully received. --John (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the block was appropriate. Although there may be competence issues involved, the IP's edit history is puzzling—a few edits last year, and now edit-warring and section-blanking. Could be a dynamic IP, a sock or undisclosed COI editing. In any case, 3RR was breached and a one-day block is the standard breather. All the best, Miniapolis 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism, because they believe there is misinformation in the article, but definitely edit warring. A little more non-templated engagement by established editors prior to escalation would have been nice, but the post-block dialog by John is reasonable... editor indicates they discussed the edit(s) on the "talk back" page but history doesn't indicate any postings to a talk page. I'm off wiki soon myself but if a kind soul wanted to attempt engagement on ip talk page... NE Ent 03:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. --John (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Andrew Wakefield

User:Zackiegirl, see Zackiegirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be an SPA account engaged in a combination of edit warring and fringe POV and WP:OR pushing at Andrew Wakefield; may in fact already be in violation of WP:3RR. I believe that a block of some sort is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See edit summary: "Corrections to reflect the truth." NE Ent 03:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clear case of someone who's here only to promote a truth of some sort. I was hesitant to push the button, but earlier activism was reverted here. Block per WP:NOTHERE, which in this case also includes edit warring, and since they're essentially an SPA on the vaccine-autism tip I see no reason to give them even more leeway. If Zackiegirl ever wishes to explain and perhaps receive a few pointers, they can place an unblock request since indefinite is not infinite. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Drmies. I have edited that article so I was reluctant to get involved. This account has campaigner written all over it. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any point in blacklisting http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com ? It can serve no useful purpose here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support this. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing my talk page comments

User:Lightbreather (LB) edited an article talk page comment of mine without permission. Her edit summary was: “Anythingyouwant, I hope you won't mind my anonymizing this for (currently) uninvolved editors' sakes. If so, please revert.” I did mind, and reverted.

A little while later, this editor did it again, but on a much bigger scale. I have not reverted this time, and ask an uninvolved admin to please stop this cycle.

Okay, that's the short version. Now for the longer version, regarding the second (huge) editing of my comments....This kerfuffle involves the article Gun politics in the United States (the "US article") which is a subject of a current ArbCom case (the main subject of the case is the international article Gun control). The US article has a section about people wanting guns to prevent tyranny. LB wanted to prevent that section from including anything about people wanting guns to prevent Nazi-style oppression. So, on January 29, I said that I assumed everyone agreed that the Nazis were tyrannous; to my surprise, LB disagreed. I subsequently mentioned this amazing thing to ArbCom on February 4. Fast forward to today, LB decided over my objections to re-hash the issues that are now before ArbCom (with a decision imminent), and so I obliged. I mentioned the same thing today that I previously mentioned to ArbCom, and LB asked me to delete it from the talk page, and I declined. The discussion is in the link I just gave. So then LB made two successive edits deleting many of my comments. The first edit had this edit summary: "Removing per WP:RPA after other editor refused three requests to remove WP:WIAPA Nazi comparisons." The second edit had this summary: "Restored beginning of sentence lost in removing (three) Nazi comparisons; removed requests (three) to remove Nazi comparisons". I didn't attack LB, and instead invited her to retract her weird previous statement that the Nazis were not tyrannous. Anyway, there you have it. Since my talk page comment got hacked up, I figured it's something that should be mentioned here, even though it's part of an inflamed controversy that is currently before ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion and my objection speak for themselves. This is what it looked like before I removed, per RPA, Anythingyouwant's remarks, which I first asked him three times to remove. The last part of the discussion is most pertinent (scroll down to the out-dent). There was no reason to bring up my remark - taken out of context - from over three weeks ago, let alone to misrepresent it. I told Anything that, and asked him - three times - to remove those parts of his comments.

Were the Nazis tyrants? They were sick, twisted mass-murderers, and to lump what they did in with the "general tyranny" (his words, not mine) of King George's taxation without representation or current attempts to pass stronger gun regulations is beyond inappropriate.

I think it's more than a "kerfuffle" to have someone implying you're a Nazi sympathizer because you don't agree with their ideas of who are tyrants. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a Nazi sympathizer, or anything of the sort. What I said is that you denied the Nazis were tyrannous, which is exactly what you did. Perhaps you did that to gain advantage in a content dispute; that seems much more likely than that you have the least sympathy for Nazis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Lightbreather denied that the Nazis were "tyrannous" which is a very obscure word alternative to "tyrannical" in any case. I think instead that the editor objected to lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous", which I believe is a reasonable invocation of Godwin's law. Hammering on about "Nazi this, and Nazi that" in such a discussion seems profoundly unhelpful to me. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't like bringing this here, and I don't even like editing an article that has a Nazi angle, legitimate or not. No one (certainly not me) advocated lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous". What I object to is having my comments edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything: That makes THREE times you've linked to my remark in thhis discussion alone. Why? Also, I explained then and earlier today why I did not agree with your oversimplified I'm-assuming-everyone-here-agrees-the-Nazis-were-tyrannous argument. And I explained further in my last reply. The Polish doctor who delivered me was a concentration camp survivor, and this conversation is causing me distress. Stop trying to make something distasteful out of what I said to refute your bogus remark of three weeks ago. Lightbreather (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well many of my relatives died in concentration camps. This is a delicate subject. I'm more than happy for you to clarify what you meant, but I did not attack you, and there was no valid reason for you to delete my talk page comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

They were personal attacks because there was no valid reason for you to add those comments. Lightbreather (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, LB, you started a talk page section today with "Nazi" in your title. And then you edited my talk page comments in that section you started, and falsely accused me of implying that you are a Nazi sympathizer. What I did was comment about the fact that you denied Nazis were "tyrannous". And you then deleted that comment of mine, along with my explanation: "it goes to the relevance of including Nazi material in the tyranny section." We should be able to agree about the simplest and most obvious fact in human history: that the Nazis were tyrants. You could say they were tyrants, but claim that they were completely different from any other tyrants alluded to in that section of the article, and then we could discuss that claim, but instead you still refuse to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants. It amazes me. In any event, I want my comments restored to that talk page, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

LB There was no need to 'anonymize' those user names, because the user was discussing their on-wiki !votes. LB, will you agree not to edit other people's comments on Any's talk page in future? Any, if they agree, would that solve this specific ANI request? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I edit comments on his talk page? I thought this was about an article talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forget that, I misread things. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How about agreeing not to edit comments he makes on talk pages in future? If there's something you think is wrong (per policy/guideline), you can always request that someone else deals with them. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RPA only is a valid action where there are violations that actually meet WP:NPA. I see no such personal attacks (see WP:WIAPA). Once your removal was undone, it fell into WP:BRD mode, and if you honestly felt it was indeed a personal attack, then your correct place for discussion was here to request consensus on whether or not it was a personal attack. DP 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted LB's small removal, not the big one. I brought the matter here instead. I definitely would like to revert, but would like a green light to do so. Before LB deleted my comments, she asked me to do so three times, and I refused all three times, and she went ahead and did it; I don't expect that she'd accept a revert if she wouldn't let me leave the comments in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO I think you would be more than justified in restoring your comments. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have just now done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The "small removal" Anything refers to: I replaced two editors' names with four asterisks each. Since our discussion wasn't about those editors, and since one of those editors is currently before ArbCom and the other one I don't wish to hassle, I put the asterisks in MY (original) comment first... and then, yes, in A's reply - which was a COPY/quote of MY comment, pre-asterisk. And my edit summary explained my action. And when he restored their names I did not complain, even though it looks funny now. My comment with two names asterisked out, followed by his copy of my comment with the names included. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the insulting Lightbreather-denies-that-the-Nazis-were-tyrants comment, which I asked A. to remove three times. I read WP:WIAPA and WP:RPA three times, and I feel they do apply. 1. WIAPA says, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion." It goes on to list some things that are never allowed, and ends by saying: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Guys, A. didn't say Neener-neener at me. He's formed an opinion about me based on a Nazi comment taken out of context - and he's attacking me with it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not attacking you. I have said repeatedly that I do not think you have any sympathy with Nazis, you are not a tyrant, et cetera. What more can I possibly say? Now, perhaps it would be convenient if I were attacking you, because then it would be an easier matter to get me kicked out of Misplaced Pages, but, as Al Gore says, sometimes the truth is not convenient. Anyway, you have many reasons to be optimistic about the ArbCom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply refactoring other people's comments are indeed grounds for a good block and its been done before. Why the hypocrisy? Considering she did it AGAIN and heasnt learn.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it too late to point out that contributors' personal opinions as to whether the Nazi's were 'tyrants' is of no relevance to article content, and accordingly doesn't belong on the article talk page in the first place? This whole kerfuffle seems to have been started when Anythingyouwant wrote "P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous" , and Lightbreather responded "I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree". At that point, neither Anythingyouwant nor anyone else asked Lightbreather to expand on her statement, and accordingly, for Anythingyouwant to raise it again almost a month later, as a blanket statement that "You may not think the Nazis were tyrants" looks to me like a petty attempt at point-scoring, if not a personal attack. I note that Anythingyouwant has also chosen to raise this (long after the appropriate period for the submission of evidence) at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop, under the heading of 'Vandalism at article talk page' - which looks to me to be (a) forum shopping, (b) an entirely out-of-process attempt to introduce new evidence (the decision is late as it is), and (c) in direct contradiction to WP:VANDAL. I suggest that this thread be closed with an admonishment to Anythingyouwant for misrepresenting Lightbreather's original comment, and an admonishment to Lightbreather for removing the personal attack, rather than reporting the matter for others to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And I request that AndyTheGrump be admonished for willfully misrepresenting the facts. His omissions could not be more glaring. For one thing, he is an opposing involved party in the ArbCom case. For another, he knows that ArbCom has instructed: "If something new came up that supports a workshop proposal since the evidence phase closed, we don't need to legalistically bar editors from bringing attention to it, since it would have been rather impossible to bring up there." Additionally, Grump knows that I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants, including evidence I presented to ArbCom (which Andy also omits). Grump also knows that I have already acknowledged that LB's actions might not rise to the level of vandalism, but that I also contend that inserting "obvious nonsense" is indeed vandalism, which (as Grump knows) is what I have said happened here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, please close this thread. I got what I came for, namely support for restoring my deleted talk page comments. The rest seems to be just an attempt to divert, distract, and discombobulate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Which facts have I misrepresented? Diffs please. And the ArbCom workshop phase has been closed for some time. And why the fuck do you think that Lightbreather should be obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? Since when has participation in Misplaced Pages been contingent on 'acknowledging' facile oversimplifications of history clearly raised as polemical points by partisan contributors? And no, I see no reason to close this thread until you have provided the evidence to back up your claim that I have been 'misrepresenting facts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I already specified the many items that you omitted, causing misrepresentation by omission. Moreover, per Arbitrator instruction on 13 February: "I'm expecting to have the draft proposed decision posted for Workshop comments within a week." That has not happened yet, and workshop comments are perfectly appropriate right now, as you yourself have been demonstrating. Lightbreather is not obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants", but I would urge have urged that she do that, since she has denied it, and since the disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

I urged LB not to reopen this mess at the article talk page yesterday, and I have urged you to not perpetuate it here. But if you insist, then we can certainly go on and on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think a contributor's personal opinion of whether Nazis were tyrants is of any relevance to article content? Not that we actually know what Lightbreather's opinion on the matter actually is, since her only comment on the matter seems to be to the effect that she disagreed with the use of the word in one particular context - an entirely reasonable position to take when faced with facile polemics. Evidently you aren't actually interested in her opinion though, since rather than ask for an explanation of why she disagreed - in that context - you chose to misrepresent it at ArbCom as some sort of blanket statement. Which it clearly never was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about any editor's personal opinions, except about article content. The disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

First, Andy, you say that I think LightBreather is "obliged" to answer me, and then you say that I'm "not actually interested" in any answer. Please get your story straight, or better yet let this matter drop so ArbCom can finish its business. I will say to you what I already said to LB: you have an excellent chance of prevailing at ArbCom, given that LB is not an involved party (and given my own cynicism about that committee).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is a statement that "I do not care about any editor's personal opinions" compatible with your earlier assertion that "I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? You seem to be insisting on some sort of blanket yes or no answer, rather than actually allowing LightBreather to explain her position. And no, LightBreather's opinion on whether the Nazis were tyrants should be of no relevance to article content - that should be left to the appropriate sources, qualified historians of Nazism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered. Obviously, if LB does not agree that the Nazis were tyrants for purposes of this Misplaced Pages article, then that is extremely relevant to whether the disputed material belongs in a section about "tyrants". I have already offered to provide LB with reliable sources proving that they were tyrants (see article talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What is most 'obvious' here is that you took a qualified statement from LightBreather ('I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree') as some sort of generalised statement you could raise later as and when you felt like it, just to make her look bad. Hence her objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I overlooked her statement until I was putting together my evidence for ArbCom. But it speaks for itself, I didn't mischaracterize it, it explains her position, it's a very flawed statement, I have invited her to change it, I have offered to present evidence that the Nazis were tyrants, and it's manifestly absurd to suggest that the Nazis were tyrants except for purposes of this Misplaced Pages article. Anyway, Andy, I'm not going to clutter up ANI by further responses to you about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The FIST TIME Lightbreather went to ANI for doing this, she escaped being blocked due to non-consensus. She appears not to have learned. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly relevant ANI thread: AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: that ANI, we worked out an agreement on Sue's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, but LB and I have that worked out. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The first time I went for RPA was the last time I went, and the admin on that case said I had good reason to remove the comments - accusing me of vandalism - and he said the editor who brought it up had a boomerang coming, which I considered, but declined to do. Lightbreather (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As to the relevance of comparisons between 20th or 21st century gun control and Nazi tyranny, Anythingyouwant said above: "No one (certainly not me) advocated lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous"." While I would not conflate the two or indeed see them as at all similar, there is a minority but significant faction in US politics that does see gun control as quite similar to the actions of the Nazi regime, and uses that comparison freely, a fact which may be of relevance to the article. DES 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied at user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

AccuracyObsessed

AccuracyObsessed continues to vandalize two pages by removing documented and cited information. AccuracyObsessed has been warned and will not discuss anything on the talk pages. Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg has made inaccurate, poorly sourced postings on two articles that appear to be personal attacks and may be libelous. Please view the pages and stop this user from changing well-documented history.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The information was not poorly sourced. It is in a court record. Furthermore, this subject must be covered accurately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartzenberg (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the articles in question is Sheri Fink who won the Pulitzer Prize for her reporting about the medical aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, inherently a controversial story. It seems that there is an active campaign to make Fink look bad, for example, by placing undue weight on her decision to pursue a career in journalism instead of medicine, and accusing her of a lack of journalistic integrity. There are serious WP:BLP concerns, and an active edit war is going on. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested prot 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's some major WP:NPOV violations in there. I've taken a stab at removing them. --NeilN 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg, we're not using an advocacy site specifically created to attack the subject as the major source of a "Criticism" section. Find neutral third party sources like newspapers. --NeilN 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for being "in a court record", remember WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion page, Talk:Sheri_Fink, seems awfully quiet. I suggest y'all use it before making further changes - discuss things and get consensus. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP needs to be dealt with right way. None of the editors who were not previously in the dispute have reverted or disagreed with each other. --NeilN 05:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, 88.104.19.233... so nice to see you back in the game with your calm, wise advice! Don't ever think you're not missed around here...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This conflict also involves Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina‎‎. I made some comments at the talk page (Talk:Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina‎‎) after Schwartzenberg posted about it (under its former name) at the help desk. Additional eyes would be welcome there, i think. DES 21:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by William M. Connolley

Note: I'm trying to follow instructions on how to file this complaint; I have never done this before.

User:William M. Connolley has engaged in tendentious editing at Charles R. Burton.
When the article was created in 2008, Burton was described as an "explorer," which was duly cited to an obituary in the NYT that called him an explorer. Diff. The word stood until WMC removed it on 8 Feb with the edit summary, "rephrase a bit, make his role clear, and not-call him an explorer: it was only 4 years of his life, after all." Diff.

I reverted it about a week later with the summary, "Unquestionably an explorer." Four hours later he reverted my revert (removed the word "explorer" again) with the summary, "no, its *definteily* questionable, cos I questioned it." Diff. The next day I reverted it, adding more RSs that call Burton an explorer and summarizing, "We'll stick with the RSs." Diff.

On 17 Feb., I fixed a few little things in the article and opened a section on the article talk page asking, "Dr. Connolley, please revert your removal of reliably sourced info. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff. I also posted on his own talk page, "Hello. Please revert yourself at Charles R. Burton. The sources are clear that he was an explorer and they should not be removed. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)". Diff.To this he responded, "Stop stalking and get a life William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff.

Then User:Viriditas and User:Jonathan A Jones joined the discussion and in turn restored the word "explorer." You can see the history here.

The crux of my argument is what I posted on WMC's talk page: The article called Burton an explorer since it was created in 2008; the burden of proof to show from RSs that he was not falls on you. We have four reliable sources--including the one you let stand--that call him an explorer. Can you please explain on what basis you assert, "he's still not an explorer, sorry"? Can you please provide a rationale for deleting reliable sources? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Diff. I follow the logic of his reply, but believe it is a personal interpretation and opinion not allowed at WP, a tertiary encyclopedia. If the sources call Burton an explorer, we have to, too. Diff.

Next, WMC very appropriately moved our discussion to the article talk page. You can follow the short history of the discussion here.

My bottom line is that I feel WMC should restore the word "explorer" as the prime identifier of Burton in the first sentence. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him so have not restored it myself. Yopienso (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I warned WMC at the article page, which he did not respond to, and on his talk page, which he blanked. Diff. Diff. Yopienso (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My involvement here was fleeting. I saw the debate, and I thought that the arguments on both sides had some merit, but the strength of the argument probably lay with Yopienso. The discussion on the talk page was largely users talking past each other rather than to each other, though once again Yopienso seemed to be making more of an effort than WMC. I suggested a compromise which I implemented, but it didn't find favour with either side of the debate, and the page returned to an unedifying squabble. As this had exhausted my interest in the subject I left them to it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what I found amazing was the assertion that a person who was only an explorer for four years is thus ineligible to be called an "explorer" at all, but must remain only "British" in the opening sentence of the lead. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As the article shows, he was a soldier and security contractor for most of his life. So he could be called something based on that. What I found amazing is that someone is deemed notable based on 5 newspaper articles. These sorts of sources aren't going to carefully deal with the issues of calling someone an explorer when that isn't what they did for most of their life but only for a short period. A large published biography would presumably sort the issues out, but the threshold for notability is so low for biographies that these sorts of issues arise in the first place. Second Quantization (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he did most of his life. What matters is what he's notable for. Wallace Stevens spent most of his life working in insurance, but he's famous for being a poet. Anders Breivik spent one day of his life being a mass murderer, but that's what he's famous for, and the only reason he has an article. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet the Breivik article doesn't say, "Anders brevik is a mass murder". It says he was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks. Just like the Burton article should read: . Second Quantization (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think Burton is properly called an explorer, because that;s where his notability is, and because that's what he as called in the NYT obit.I doubt they would have done an obit on him otherwise, nor we an article. I also think this discussion does not belong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a content dispute and should not be posted here. I think the word "explorer" is redundant in the first sentence, because it then says he is best known for his part in a expedition, which is what explorers do. So he is an explorer best known for exploring. The article on Anders Breivik does not btw say in the first paragraph that he was a mass murderer, but that he killed people and was convicted of mass murder. TFD (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I have been instructed that an RfC was in order, not an AN/I. I have posted an RfC to the article talk page. Yopienso (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy Sellers, BLP violating hoax

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

I started looking into this article to find sources but was unable to confirm anything. And when clicking on some of the many wikilinks noticed some were created as fakes; see here the links for the alleged co-bandmates. The band never seemed to exist, the shows, some of which list dozens of cast/cameos never list this person. And most troubling besides outing what is likely a fictionalized real person, we are naming a wife, and children, noting his bisexuality, and his "his battles with depression, alcoholism and cocaine addiction". Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted for the time being; I'll have a look now to see if it's complete bollocks or something else. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that is indeed complete nonsense and will be staying deleted, thanks for reporting it. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Parkfly3 in violation of 3RR

User:Parkfly3 has engaged in an edit war, and has repeatedly deleted flag templates from List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. Parkfly3 has ignored my warning to not edit war and has violated the three-revert rule.

• Edit #1 - 14:35, 21 February 2014 – Parkfly3 deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags restored to article per WP:BRD at 18:01 ].

• Edit #2 - 18:16, 21 February 2014 – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags again restored to article per BRD at 19:13

- Warning message sent to Parkfly3 at 19:17 (ignored)

• Edit #3 - 19:49, 21 February 2014 - – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

User:Parkfly3 is in clear violation of WP:3RR and I request that the account be blocked to prevent further disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR means that you must not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours and Parkfly3 has only just reached the limit of 3 reverts. So while there is no clear violation there is a tendency to edit warring and any further reverts will be met with a block; but as Parkfly3 has now stopped editing I won't block right now. Dolovis, you might, however, want to take a look at WP:MOSFLAG which says that "flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" and "where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." (PS: For future reference, the noticeboard for edit warring is thataway.) De728631 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of the flag template at this article appears to comply with WP:MOSFLAG , but in any event, per WP:BRD, Parkfly3 should not edit war, but should rather first seek a consensus on the article's talk page before making controversial edits to articles. Thank you for the direction to the edit warring noticeboard and if the problem continues it will be taken there. Dolovis (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

BRD isn't a policy or a guideline. It's just an essay. buffbills7701 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay that emphasizes that WP:CONSENSUS is key, and not to break WP:3RR or WP:EW. So, essay or not, it takes policy and makes it easily understandable DP 21:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong in WP:ANEW? 0x0077BE 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As the panda obseves, it's "only an essay" that reflects how WP:CONSENSUS interprets policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Russell Hantz protection needed from IP hopping disruptor

This article appears to be the latest target for a IP hopping vandal. See the closed AfD history, and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 show some of the background. Can someone quickly protect the article at least for a few days? The history is quickly filling up with vandalism/reverting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

I wanted to request review of the request posted at talk:Amazon Eve#Gender. I responded that we do not lock or blank discussions unless they violate Misplaced Pages policies; I just wanted to flag it here in case others saw strong enough BLP concerns or other reasons to honor the request. The request was made by a self-identified representative of the subject of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in these cases, it's recommend that they contact WMF directly, if it's a BLP issue. Anyone have the email address? Liz 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Smells like commercial spamming article to me. But can't be proven to be so, should remain, unless WP:Notability is not fulfilled.Arildnordby (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That article has been a problem for years. Editors with obvious conflicts have attempted to alter the article without regard for Misplaced Pages's policies. This latest user has several times stopped just short of making legal threats. I finally removed the article from my watchlist because it was too much trouble to manage and because there were too few other editors interested in it. Frankly, it's too bad the article wasn't deleted when it was taken to AfD. Even if she passes Misplaced Pages's relatively low threshold of notability, she just isn't that notable. A great resolution, in my view, if one of her supposed reps wanted to take this to WP:OTRS, would be to have the article deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is obviously upheld, under legal threats, by the company Amazing Eve. But, unfortunately, some abuse of Misplaced Pages will always occur, particularly by dedicated persons who happen to be clever as well.Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

THat is incorrect, Arildnordby. The article is not upheld under legal threats, because we do not accept legal threats made by editors against the project or volunteers at the project. And this is precisely why; legal threats are made to intimidate editors and to try to control content. That is why I have blocked JourdySilva until the legal threat is retracted. -- Atama頭 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is that the rep likes to have the article on their client, but doesn't want any of the speculation about her being transgendered (or whatever the term is), of which there is plenty on the internet if you Google her a bit. Is she notable? I think the coverage does meet GNG at least, perhaps not WP:NMODEL since most of it is general coverage as a result of her being so tall and not recognition as a model per se. The rep did contact OTRS, I offered to take a look. The article claimed she was born a man, using original research to tie the subject to a person who, using her real name, identified as transgendered in an article on Out Magazine years ago. The latest is an SPA that insists their research into birth records and such is "proof" of the transgender claims. So far there is not a single reliable source that flat out identifies the subject of the article as anything other than a woman, and so that's what the article should reflect. Anything else is speculation and goes against the core of WP:BLP. Now as to the demands by the rep that we "stop" the discussion, I will AGF on it by now since it stops short of being a legal threat - Barek's comment to them regarding what we can and cannot discuss on a talk page should hopefully be enough. Going forward, we should consider this another one of those "problem" BLPs that needs a few eyes to avoid unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims to creep back in. Maybe one day there will be a source that supports the assertions, but until then, any whiff of her being anything other than a woman should be removed unless accompanied by very robust sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, she wasn't that clever after all, fortunately! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How to get the balance right between open discussion and avoiding violating BLP on talk pages is always tricky but if no reliable sources have been provide linking the subject of the article to the other person or the sexuality claims and they have all been based on WP:OR, I don't see any harm partially courtesy blanking the discussion once it's clear there's nothing new coming, perhaps only leaving the statements that relate to our sourcing requirements and prohibitions of OR. (I'm actually always in favour of blanking discussion of controversy stuff about a living person which is clearly not going to be added to the article if people are concerned about the discussion itself.)

Similarly any future discussions can be deleted outright in the absence of any new sourcing or otherwise relevant, per WP:BLPTALK.

JourdySilva should of course be made aware that if all discussions are partially courtesy blanked, it's more difficult for someone to know what was discussed before and therefore possibly more likely someone will raise the issue again. If this stuff is discussed widely elsewhere I question the wisdom of such blanking instead suggesting the initial discussion is left be.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I've added some IMO fairly neutral hidden comments to the places where this stuff seems to be added most (DOB, birthname and beginning of article) to try to discourage further poorly sources or unsourced additions. In the process I also removed the DOB completely since I didn't find any reliable source which mentions it, even the subject's own pages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the diffs between the one where JourdySilva added his contact info and the one where DangerousPanda redacted that info should be redacted, but not the rest of the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

coretheapple violating edit warring and 3R rule

Coretheapple again vandalized the Santacon page. This has happened at least 6 times in the last three months. I'm reporting him to admins and requesting to delete his account for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages terms of service and anti community, antisocial activity. coretheapple is engaged in edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. He has contempt for the terms and conditions of wikipedia culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:F108:EB21:FE91:28C7 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No violation evident: Coretheapple made one revert today and it was clearly in good faith. His/her edit summary clearly explained the reason for the revert. No sanctions are necessary against that account. —C.Fred (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

,, Clueless forumshopper. — Writegeist (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not seeing anything problematic from Coretheapple. 2602 on the other hand... insistent POV-pushing on Santacon, lack of understanding of the edit warring policy, and a lot of hysterical screaming at Coretheapple in a lot of different places. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Well is this a WP:BOOMERANG then? I have always found Core to be a fine and civil editor. Jusdafax 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ajativada

Repeated block evasion by User:Aoclery at Ajativada, using User:174.1.72.182 and newly created account User:Toclery. SPI has been re-opened at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aoclery, but will probbably take a few weeks. Given the persistence of this user, I'm also posting this notice here in hope of swift action. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Gareth Griffith-Jones - strongly unwelcoming and insulting edit summaries

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

I have had a experience that raises concern with ‎User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, who I do not believe I have encountered on Misplaced Pages previously. In the course of attempting to fix a paragraph in the plot summary section of No Country For Old Men (film) this editor reverted me quite insultingly: blatantly ordering me to "leave it alone" and questioning if I had seen the movie at all. My attempts to discuss this on the editor's Talk page were deleted with the further insult of "patronising drivel". Perhaps he found it too much to reply to my ironic observation that his User page states he is a member of the Misplaced Pages group the "Kindness Campaign."

A quick look at Griffith-Jones' recent edits shows that I am not the only editor he has insulted just today. Here calls the edits "nonsense" which is a patent violation of the civility pillar. To an editor new to an article, this type of over-the-top insult discourages participation and leads to ownership and stagnation. I ask for justice in the name of those others abused by Griffith-Jones to stop his potential further abuses in the future. It's my strongly held view that corrective measures are in order for Griffith-Jones. Thanks for any consideration you can give this incident, and I have notified this editor of the report here on his Talk page. (I see the notification has been removed within minutes.) Jusdafax 09:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Only talking of the last incident, per se, "nonsense" is not a personal attack, "idiot" is. See the difference? In this case, you can't eat a meal while you are burying a person, can you? You can enjoy a meal during transport, but during the act of burying? That is rather meaningless to state.Arildnordby (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's turn it around. With respect, if I were to say your post is nonsense, would you feel insulted? Jusdafax 09:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No? Why should I? I say dumb things all the time. Don't you?Arildnordby (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(Grin) Good thing my girlfriend is asleep already, as her comments would be notable. Seriously, it's new users I am concerned about. The IP in question did not deserve that. It was a good faith edit. Jusdafax 09:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

People who make nonsensical comments deserve to have their comments termed nonsense, whether they are new or not. But, he could have said in edit summary "nonsense, didn't eat while burying"Arildnordby (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking through his edit summaries for the past few weeks, he doesn't strike me as unwelcoming and insulting at all. Looks like more or less the average user to me. Bjelleklang - talk 09:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Perhaps this is just a blip. I am wondering however if perhaps further back others have observed hostile behavior. I'd like to see an admin issue a warning for the above at the very least. By the way, the editor is not an IP but is an infrequent editor with no user page. Jusdafax 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Gareth's one of the good guys. Misplaced Pages is an extremely frustrating place at times, nobody is immune from being less than courteous at times. There's probably a very good reason for it. I don't see anything worth coming here about, move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so. However, I find his current disdain and unwillingness to comment with other than insulting edit summaries concerns me, and the oddity of the above juxtaposed with his Talkpage support for the "Kindness Campaign" seems startling. If you don't mind I'd like to see this left up a bit to ascertain if others share my concerns or have had similar experiences. Thanks. Jusdafax 10:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think a bit about good faith here? You say he "blatantly ordered" you. Did he? All I can see is that he wrote "Leave it alone". That would, in a good faith interpretation be a suggestion and an advice, rather than a "blatant order".Arildnordby (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to define the three words as other than an order, in my view. It has the intention of a chilling effect. And you leave out the rest of the edit summary, which can only be taken in combination with the order as insulting. I think most editors here will agree that the summary is out of line by a good measure. But perhaps I'm wrong. Let's hear from a few others. Jusdafax 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look a further back in his history (covering approx the past 2k edits), and I see absolutely _no_ indication that he is rude or hostile in any way to editors. As there has been several other editors here who seem to disagree with your impression, why not let it rest? Perhaps you _may_ just be wrong here as you wrote above, and interpreted him the wrong way. Bjelleklang - talk 11:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. If nothing else,my posting here is in the record in case Griffith_Jones continues with this style of editing. Jusdafax 11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've bumped into Gareth a few times while editing. He's an enthusiastic chap, particular about Welsh Rugby Union, and I think he was just trying to ignore the drama, though in his case I would just leave a talk page thread to rot rather than explicitly revert it. If the two of you have a content dispute over No Country for Old Men, then follow the usual steps to resolve it. If you put a suggestion on talk that is ignored, you've then got a stronger right to revert. In any case, this doesn't need administrator action. Ritchie333 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This was no talk page dispute: I would not have brought that here. This is a revert and the comment is in the edit summary, as the link shows. I had worked out a second version of the paragraph after a previous editor had reverted me and we had worked matters out on his talk page. That's how Misplaced Pages is supposed to operate. Griffith-Jones reverts insultingly, does not discuss, and removes queries on his talk page. And when I see him using what I'd call insulting edit summaries to others right after my experience, I think at the very least a warning is called for. If there is anyone who has seen similar behavior from Griffith-Jones, it becomes a bigger problem. Jusdafax 10:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you make an edit, and another editor reverts it, then simply be the better man and take discussion to the talk page. Simples. Ritchie333 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And when you see others getting uncivil treatment in Griffith-Jones' edit summaries, you ask for other eyes at ANI. For the record I believe this is my second filing here in the past five years. Jusdafax 11:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally ignore them, remind myself of all the family and real world friends I have, then edit somewhere else. Happy editing. Ritchie333 12:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

His reverts were not insulting. For example, your own edits reduced the quality of the article, on a) Two rooms are connected by an air vent, you do not rent a room connected to an air vent. b) Neither do you un-screw an air vent cover with a dime, you remove the air vent cover. Basically, your edits was not good English (but obviously good faith).Arildnordby (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the content of my edits, but the manner in which they were reverted and the absolute refusal to discuss them. I think your opinions are now clear, and again, I am asking for a spectrum of views, not a continuing discussion with one or two editors. Thanks. Jusdafax 11:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not discuss. You SCREAM, refusing to even consider that "Leave it alone" means other than "blatant order", you DECLARE that this user is "insulting" for saying posts are "nonsense". Basically, you demand that your emotional state should be the highest law on Misplaced Pages. Discussion is not something you show any interest in.Arildnordby (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I thought I'd made it clear my concern is for new editors and those new to an article. Cheers! Jusdafax 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen Gareth be anything other than amiable in his dealings with other editors. The edit summaries strike me as being concise rather than anything malicious; I don't feel there's a case to answer here. Fraggle81 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself particularly thin-skinned and as I note above, I believe this to be only my second filing here in five years. This treatment from Griffith-Jones seemed unusually harsh to me, as I close in on 60k edits. Perhaps I've just been in a anomalously kindly corner of the pedia. Jusdafax 12:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the summaries. But then I say worse myself, quite frequently ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears the thing to do is agree to close for now. I've done what I deemed needful by establishing a record, and if it never needs to be referred back to, that will be great. Again, as filer I am open to closure. Jusdafax 12:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update fail?

From my watchlist:

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elements was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject African diaspora was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

Any idea what this might be? I've never seen a message like that before. Adam Cuerden 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The smart Wikipedians hang at WP:VPT, I'd suggest asking there. NE Ent 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a failed message delivery attempted using the new mw:Extension:MassMessage delivery system. Of the targets listed at User talk:Mr.Z-man/labsmove, only one message got through. The user has since delivered the messages via another method. I do not know why this delivery failed. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ah, well, always kinks in this sort of thing. Probably someone forgot that Misplaced Pages talk: was as viable of a namespace as User talk or Talk. Adam Cuerden 18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is more info at Misplaced Pages talk:Mass message senders#Undelivered messages - Misplaced Pages talk: namespace --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with User:50.157.141.113

I think an admin needs to speak with User:50.157.141.113. I left a polite message regarding WP:V/WP:NOR on their talk page, and the editor responded with an extremely abusive message. I attempted to explain that incivility like this is not permitted, and can result in blocking, and the editor responded with an even more abusive message, and stated that he/she intended to engage in sockpuppetry if blocked. Nightscream (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by multiple IP's

This user is vandalising Misplaced Pages using diffrent IP's. It is an open SPI, but since it is not helping at the moment, since the user has been vandalisng for a couple of hours now. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bronx24. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see that Edgar181, Acroterion, and my old hero Materialscientist have been handing out blocks left and right. I must be feeling puritanical or, perhaps, I'm compensating for not handing out a civility block, but those edit summaries rubbed me the wrong way and I've revdeleted a whole bunch of them. As Edgar said in protecting one of the targets, "childishness". A range block might be necessary, though I think this is the kind of vandalism that is short-lived. At least, I hope it is. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pointy behaviour from Kwamikagami

Could someone tell Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to stop his pointy behaviour?

On February 2, Kwamikagami made a series of edits which broke {{val}}. These were reverted, and {{val}} TE-protected. After it was TE-protected, Kwamikagami fork {{val}} into {{val2}}, and went on an AWB spree to replace the use of {{val}} in articles by {{val2}}. {{Val2}} was nominated for deletion pretty much right then and there, but he kept at it.

A side-discussion and edit war occured on WP:MOSNUM, mostly concerning the alignment of asymmetrical uncertainties (should the uncertainties in 1.00+0.11
−0.99 be aligned or not), and fought to introduce {{val2}} as a legit alternative to {{val}}. There is currently an RfC on that (Template talk:Val#RfC).

He has a very long history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Admin Callanecc warned him for his edit warring on MOSNUM . Kwamikagami re-edited the MOSNUM, and Callanec gave him two changes to self-revert , but he didn't.

Admin Mr. Stradivarius closed the {{val2}} deletion discussion and deleted/moved it to the sandbox. where before Kwamikagami's was to use AWB to convert {{val}} to {{val2}}, now he's going on an AWB rampage to change the use of {{val}} to {{+-}} ], claiming "MOS compliance". This is pointy behaviour of the highest order, and makes it a pain in the ass to maintain articles because whenever the RfC on val will close, we'll have to either go through Kwamikagami's edit history and mass revert him, or go on an AWB spree of our own to undo the damage.

Warn him, block him, I don't care, but please do something.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To sum up: I reverted *my own edits* resulting in no net change to the articles.

I had made a template change (from {{±}} to {{val2}}) to some articles I had been editing, a change for efficiency that had no effect on the formatting, which was already compliant with the MOS. (Cf. my initial change with the partial self-revert Headbomb linked to above. The restored part is where the later change to {{val}} had broken the formatting.) Headbomb got all upset, and had the template {{val2}} replaced with another, {{val}}, which was similar but resulted in the formatting of those articles no longer being compliant with the MOS, and frankly an eyesore. I then reverted my own edits so that the article format was once again compliant with the MOS, as it had been for years, resulting in no net change except for an invisible increase in the use of the template that Headbomb favors, as I only partially reverted myself. The end result is that, for the point Headbomb is contesting, the articles look now exactly as they did before I made the edits that Headbomb initially objected to. I have not done this to the articles Headbomb's been involved with. Perhaps Headbomb should be warned or blocked for making frivolous charges?

As for the change at MOSNUM, that's a warning to our editors that the template recommended to produce the recommended formatting does not actually produce the recommended formatting. Several admins have noted that the discrepancy is problematic. I am amenable to instead tagging the claim as 'dubious' or to any wording that any editor might think is better than my own, but no-one has bothered, nor has anyone seen fit to revert it. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Headbomb's put a lot of work into the template {{val}}, and it appears he's quite sensitive about it, to the point that he's been demanding that the MOS be changed to comply with his template, and that {{±}}, which is used in 25 times as many articles for the format in question, also be changed to match, rather than allowing even the *option* of user choice in the matter. He's welcome to his opinion, but he hardly has reason to get upset if I disagree. (As does nearly everyone else, for example an opinion that was just posted.) — kwami (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Aren't most templates and important functions supposed to be able to be typed on a standard engligh keyboard? How do you expect most users to type ± often? Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{+-}}, {{-+}} and {{plusminus}} redirect to it. — Lfdder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

Orestes1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) states HiLo48 is "nothing more than an incompetent fuckwit"

I've previously pointed out that per Misplaced Pages guidelines, comments about other editors are not appropriate for article talk pages.

Full disclosure: you'll want a fresh cup of coffee / tea before reading the long, long thread at Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#In_theory, and it ain't like the other guy was perfect, but we gotta draw the line somewhere, right? NE Ent 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Editor notified NE Ent 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I had a half-full cup of rather lukewarm coffee and managed to read most of it. I appreciate your input in the discussion, by the way; it's understandable that few people besides the usual subjects are interested in the matter. I'm a bit loath to block for an insult, though it should be noted that Orestes has a history with HiLo, and that the latter has kept his cool considerably in the recent past. I told Orestes on their talk page that they should either keep their cool or stop editing the page. If any admin things there's enough reason for a block here I won't object, though, again, I don't think one is warranted right now. Any further insults, well, that just wouldn't be good. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Guilty as charged... Nothing more to say... Furthermore... To make this even more simple, I do not care either, so do your worst. When editors abuse the system the way HiLo48 does this is worth every minute of the privilege of being sent on a holiday.

Goodbye --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• You don't need to be sent on a holiday, you can take one yourself. For the record, I see no evidence whatsoever of HiLo abusing anything. (Except that they should really put smaller images on the talk page.) Drmies (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious or just pissing in my pocket about HiLo48s consistently intolerable behaviour? That is actually quite ridiculous when he has spent years abusing people, goading people and where I've been consistently told to "piss off" "fuck off" been called a "moron", incompetent and etc on more than one occasion over an extended period of time... I've simply had enough of this behaviour and his behaviour in general and I will not colour in between the lines with my thoughts anymore. It will be more than pleasurable to take one for the team for his consistent intolerable behaviour and telling the world what everyone actually thinks about his behaviour OVER YEARS. As I said, guilty as charged and what's more, I don't care... And don't humour me with any more time wasting either.

Case closed, throw away the key, send me to the naughty corner, whatever it is, just get it over and done with. I have nothing to say that has not abundantly been said before, I'm tired of this. I will not be participating further in this discussion... I am at your pleasure to serve whatever sentence you feel necessary. I do not want nor need any third party defence of my actions either, so everyone else should stay out of this thanks. I will simply not stand by while this editor does not listen to anything anyone says and simply filibusters any useful discussion.

This is crap and I'm not the problem here beyond my current complete and utter frustration, yep I'll call it for what it is as well crap. I don't need to be told of what I am doing either, don't humour me, don't explain it, I know and what's more I don't care and it's HiLo48s consistent behaviour that his driven me not to care.. with what I do in my life that takes a lot of effort... I know what I've done, I simply DO NOT CARE, don't tell me, Just deal with it... --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, HiLo's behaviour in that thread is just ridiculous. He's taken one stance and fought tooth and nail, consistently using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a fall back position to try to discredit those in favour of the move. If this isn't filibustering I don't know what is. (For the record, I'm Australian myself and I too know the game as soccer, it's what I was raised with. However, given my own bias I don't intend on stepping foot in that minefield.) Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he should have stopped arguing once it was clear his stance had consensus. But given multiple editors vying for the all-important Last Word why single him out as the filibuster? NE Ent 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been wikihounded by HiLo48 and other editors simply for trying to present NPOV which is where all of this nonsense started do I really need difs to state the obvious?

I can bring a ridiculous amount of good faith edits of mine and others that have been reverted by HiLo48 for what he simply calls "idealogical soccer editors" and "idealogical vandals." It is complete and utter crap that HiLo48 would be defended by any administrator on this page. He has a history over YEARS of filibustering editors on soccer related pages which has led to a point where the article on Soccer in Australia is an absolute joke, and I AM talking about the article AND NOT the talk page... I am just one of a long list of editors he has frustrated to the point where they have either stated things the way they are or given up and left because of the way HiLo48 interacts with other editors where he takes up camp. Lets start here for a revert on an otherwise good faith edit which is just a long list based on a false consensus where the global consensus of Association Football is applicable not to mention HiLo48s ongoing behaviour to insist ALL global articles including articles on international football players of Australian descent be refereed to as soccer players despite the fact that their notability lies almost entirely in nations where the game is called football. This includes players such as Tim Cahill who has played the majority of his football in England and IS more notable as a football players in England and to millions of Europeans than as a soccer player in Australia. HiLo48s attitude towards this IS nothing short of a filibuster to ensure football is only referred to as Australian Rules Football in Australia.

I have attempted to discuss, perhaps at times, in strongly worded civil language why we have the 'association football global compromise and what many of the issues are here and also how HiLo48 could have issues with his cultural and historical understanding of the sport which may be prohibiting his editing but he simply does not listen. He consistently puts up the front that he does not have to justify anything he states under Misplaced Pages:BLUE and Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE IT rather than entering into any form of discussion. If this is not an obvious filibuster I don't know what is. HiLo48 goes a long way to conceal his limited understanding of soccer with what is nothing more than filibustering to ensure that soccer related articles remain in a state of disrepute

All of this has led to a situation where I simply do not care what happens to me as a user here because I'm that fed up with things I'm just going to say it like it is --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• What's funny is, I read the whole damn discussion, including all the IDONTLIKEIT charges (now found here as well), but while it's kind of going around in circles I don't see any evidence of someone "just not liking it". There's argument on both sides, and the circularity is probably due in part because some are not quite clear in what they're arguing, but charges of IDONTLIKEIT are usually a weak cop-out and so they are here. Sorry Blackmane, but you shouldn't confuse obstinacy with fallacy. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• As I have not read any of the Australian sports material Drmies was kind enough to wade through, and I am not likely to, I'll merely point out that after urging sanctions against HiLo48 and seeing him topic banned for a year at our area of mutual interest at WP:ITN, I came to see him as a valuable contributor. Imperfect though he is, I now defend him, sometimes to my own surprise, in large part because he has learned to be a better Wikipedian over the years, and I wish him the best. Though I don't know Orestes1984, his strong personal insult and subsequent defiant print raving here call for corrective measures, in my view. I find that I have to keep lowering the bar on what is tolerated at Misplaced Pages, however. Why, just recently I... (fade out) Jusdafax 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm saddened by all of this. I was puzzled this morning by Misplaced Pages telling me that Talk:Soccer in Australia had changed, while I could see no change. I followed a chain of links to find this discussion, which nobody had told me about, but which provided yet another platform for some haters to attack me. I will insist that in recent times I have behaved pretty close to perfectly. I have firmly defended a well established consensus on that page. I have done it repeatedly because challenges to that consensus have been posted repeatedly. Some of those challenges have been pretty silly, and abusive of other editors. I ask the critics, Blackmane in particular, should such material be allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages, unchallenged? Of course there are also more attacks on me above from Orestes, which again, I've only found by accident. I won't respond to those attacks, but I will ask, does AN/I really have to remain the platform for haters to get yet another chance to abuse others, with no consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts

Could an admin please rule on this contentious AFD. There appears to be a clear consensus, and closing it would put an end to all of the unruly behavior happening there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

PERSISTENT BULLYING, HARASSMENT AND ENDLESS THREATS

PERSISTENT BULLYING, HARASSMENT AND ENDLESS THREATS. This is the second time that I am having to come on here to make a complaint. The first time, I withdrew my complaint because I did the decent thing and extended an olive branch to all those involved. But despite all attempts to calm the situation down which at times even involves me applying some humor to an aggravated situation, I am CONSTANTLY living in this nightmarish place of constant ridicule, bullying, harassment and endless threats. This has been going on for a while now and while I have stood up to the bullies many a time I think I now need this issue to be looked into very hastily. The last time I tried to lodge a complaint, I received a message asking me to try and sort it out on the editors talk pages. To be honest, short of me literally asking them to meet up so that we can discuss our differences over a cup of tea, I genuinely do not know what else I can do. I even stooped so low as to diss myself in order for this to stop. I have put a liitle essay-like article on my talk page which gives an insight to the state of my mind following these bullying tactics. I have DONE EVERYTHING only to be told that I "should stop playing the victim". These antics have gone on for so long that I have become like a schizophrenic. One minute I am cracking jokes, another minute I am tearing my hair out in anguish. I only came on wikipedia as a single-editor but now I don't know if it's been worth it at all. My aim was to stay since I loved creating the article and I wanted to be a part of some more projects but now I don't know anymore! How can people be allowed to carry on with this sort of behavior? Taking the mick out of your inexperience, taking a mick at an article you worked so hard to create, taking a mick at your identity. Just plain and simply taking a mick at the fact that youre a newbie. I did not put my article up for nomination but I do have the right to defend its ccredibility as an article without getting hounded and ridiculed. My talk page is constantly being hounded. Often times they come in the name of "peace, love and help". But minutes into the conversation you realise that they have a totally different agenda. Personally, this administrator who goes by the name dangerous panda has tried to right some wrongs because it is quite obvious that he nominated the article too hastily. His interaction with me have been confusing at best and threatening at worst. At times he comes across as if he wants to put the article back on AFC but instead of putting the question to me directly, he will offer it like he's only trying to help me and that he's doing me some sort of favour. I have had personal messages asking me about my username and that I work for the person whose article I created because I'm hiding my identity. They were even assuming my identity as being a man and all this was being discussed on my talk page. The last straw that broke the camels back was when a user who has been a constant presence on my page claimed to be offering me some friendly advice. The sarcasm was beyond belief and this time in quite a stern tone I practically tried to end the communication between us and any future ones he may be planning. You see, by this time I had had as much as I could take from this guy. Prior to that I had not actually been on his talk page to read about his mission or personal ethos on Misplaced Pages. But after our last interaction, I decided to find out who it was who kept on harassing me. It all began to make sense because this editor who goes by the name of Friday, claims to delete all "junk". Maybe that is why he is so sure that my article is going to be deleted. Because he is some expert on junk. As if that wasn't enough, he returns to the AFD discussion page to personally attack and ridicule the article I created. My responses are all on the page. But why this has now come to a header is that I am tired of panda constantly threatening that he will block me. I challenged him to do so but he hasn't. This is simply because he has no legs to stand on. But actually going ahead to block me or threatening me still goes down in my poor estimation of him anyway. My personal experience is that he operates on an intimidating " be afraid be very afraid of me mentallity" but that worked for a while until I was informed by some good people on here not to take any form of bullying. Not even from an administrator. Bullying is bullying whoever you are and it's not nice. I want this dealt with because I fear that he may block me because he can. I am done with the threats. If he wants to block me he should go ahead and do that. But if he has no grounds then he should leave well alone. I am really tired of this. I won't even go into the Religious pun and ridicule that Friday wrote on the AFD page because I think I made my point clear. But I would not want him to contact my page EVER AGAIN and if he does I will have to see how to stop him from coming on my page to harass and ridicule me. I have not been sleeping well because my e-mail keeps alerting me of constant activities on my page. I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Misplaced Pages may have its first case of suicide. I have informed my family in the unlikely event that something happens to me. I have taken shots of all my pages, e-mails, AFD discussion and talk page. Practically EVERYTHING. Please let this STOP !!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards