Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majora (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 31 December 2015 (→New user improperly reviewing articles at NPP.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll note that we do not have a written mechanism for reversal of G5 at the moment. There's a current discussion at WT:CSD about the fact that G5 is technically a zero-tolerance rule. G5 the whole lot of them would be in line with policy, keeping or restoring articles would generally be done under IAR. However that first requires us to determine if G5 is applicable here which is a different matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo, part of the issue with this particular composer is that his credits are 1000+ films long. This is separate from the albums he's released, which are listed on the main discography page. The list that the sock created appears to be any film he composed music for, regardless of the length of the contributed work. This means that he could be the main composer for the soundtrack or he could have contributed one piece of music - we have no real way of confirming this with some of the movies, as many of them are fairly old. At some point this goes beyond being a discography and at some level becomes an issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if we condense this into pages by year, this means that we have at least 5-6 pages that just list films that he composed music for. I'm aware that we do have composer credit pages, but those are for people whose works are a smaller amount, usually under 100 credits. This guy has thousands and churns out a good 20+ soundtracks a year at the very least - he did about 40 in 2015 alone. At some point we have to ask if having a complete listing of every film credit is really worth it, given that the pages for this guy will run the risk of being mammoth chunks of information with little to no true encyclopedic value other than being complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone have an idea on what we should do as far as the idea of G5 goes? I have no problem with doing all of the G5s myself, if it comes to that, as long as the pages have been checked over to ensure that we're not getting rid of a valid page. If no one has any truly major objections, here's my proposal: once we complete a section, I'll go through and check to see which pages were tagged as not meeting notability guidelines. I'll check the page and the sourcing, then if it fails, I'll delete it via G5 so that it's not a huge mass of PRODs or AfDs waiting to be handled. Both arenas are usually swamped with entries with relatively few admins monitoring them (relatively speaking) so putting them through those avenues only delays a problem that could be dealt with right away. I'm aware that this process will likely take months to complete, but I'm willing to do this. I just want to make sure that this is relatively acceptable so that I don't get in trouble for doing this. I'm not endorsing an outright deletion of each page (although I can see the merit in doing this), just saying that I don't think that the pages should have to sit in PROD-land for a full week when we could cut through the red tape and deal with them faster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This would be fine with me, though I think in practice we are looking at the articles rather slowly and do not really flood PROD and AFD--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  User:B.Bhargava Teja seem to be a sock of the blocked user; they recreated Apne Apne which I spediied several days ago, adding there the same copyright violation. Whoever is familiar with the style of the blocked user may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced birth place

@Hackinghobb: has been continually changing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and John Lennon birth places. These changes are against accepted consensus and without sources, despite multiple warnings. User refuses to discuss or source their claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but it seems as if the guy has a valid argument that Merseyside wasn't founded as a county until 1974, so the various Beatles couldn't have been born in that county, since it didn't exist at the time. It would seem as if something on the order of "Lancashire (now Merseyside)" would be a suitable compromise. BMK (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No-one was claiming Merseyside was correct? That was just suggested by User:Hackinghobb's misleading edit summaries? There are no other Liverpools in England, nor anywhere in UK. So any county is redundant. Unless there is some infobox policy convention on counties, I don't see it helps the reader at all. A county might be added in the article main body for good measure, but again this seems redundant in the case of the Fab Scouse Four. A different consensus could be established at the Talk Page if need be, if their "Lancastrian-ness" was deemed so important. So this is a just a content dispute. The contentious part is the user's lack of engagement and discussion with other editors, as BMK has rightly pointed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the dispute seems to be about whether the birthplace should just be "Liverpool, England" or "Liverpool, Lancashire, England", surely it should be possible to come to some sort of acceptable compromise, as Liverpool is a sufficiently large place that adding a county (whether Lancashire as it was when the Beatles were born, or Merseyside as it is now) is superfluous. The Royal Mail has been trying to discourage the use of counties in postal addresses for something close to 40 years by now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RSN would be a better place for this issue? Erpert 01:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources? BMK (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it seems to be the same issue that affects several related articles (WP:BLPN would be a stretch, imo). Erpert 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with BMK's description of "New York, New York" as just a mailing address. I grew up there, and it's common enough as a way of emphasizing the city (e.g., out of pride) or distinguishing the city from the state. The latter is one way to avoid this type of dialogue, which I've had too often: "Where'd you grow up?" "New York." "What city?" (exaggerated accent:) "I just toldja, NOO YAWK!!" --Thnidu (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• They've all been WP:FAs for eons with just "Liverpool, England", so stick to that. There's no need to get into ceremonial county, administrative county, historic county, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe, etc., because as noted the counties changed in the 1970s or whenever. Let the FAs stand as they were. Trout the user, warn them, and block them if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! EEng (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sounding a note of caution there, EEng. But I think three ought to be enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there's more than one Liverpool in England, "Liverpool, England" would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• This really matters, folks. If it doesn't have its own page, or at least discussions on RSN, COI, SPI and MOS by the time I get up tomorrow, I will be pissed, with a capital P, apostrophes and a hyphen. I believe it means "pool of life". I'd suggest the antagonists get one, but that might take away from the Happy Christmas I wish you all. Begoon  17:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've issued a stern warning and will be happy to block if this continues. I suggest this be closed. Happy Boxing Day everyone! --John (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppetry and edit-warring by jordandlee

This involves both edit-warring and sockpuppetry, from a very new user (about two months) who has apparently ignored and rejected all advice.

I've been copyediting on Philadelphia Phillies since around June 19 of this year (2015). On December 22 I made four consecutive edits, the last of them consisting of a couple of minor wording changes. The next day Jordandlee reverted the last one, in § 2008 World Series Champions, with no edit memo. I asked him why on his talk page; and seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from Sir Joseph, who I saw had had talks with him before (November 2015 — December 2015).

Jordandlee replied on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This was inaccurate in every way. I replied there that in accordance with WP:DR I was taking the discussion to the Phillies talk page, and did so; see there (§ 2008 World Series Champions) for details.

(Everything after this point is in Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series.)

He replied with false statements about my edits* and complaints about interactions with another editor, demonstrating his own ignorance of Misplaced Pages policies and standards†:

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using †my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that *they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In reply, I quoted and cited the guideline against multiple accounts, urged him to seek help, and pointed him to the Help Desk. He denied my accusations. I itemized the evidence against him, in detail and with links; he rebutted with an insult. Meanwhile he (as Jorduf) thanked himself (as Jordandlee), further demonstrating his sockpuppetry.

This novice user has been warned repeatedly, first by Sir Joseph, then Muboshgu, and now by myself, and has failed to show any learning or contrition. I request that he be banned.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just starting to look into this, but he does seem to admit both accounts are his here. SQL 11:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And here. SQL 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That being said - I don't see him using the second account to support itself on talk pages, or to skirt 3rr. Just because someone has more than one account isn't necessarily grounds for a ban. I honestly don't see anything actionable here - but I am pretty tired. SQL 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. Doesn't seem to be any actual sock puppetry going on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "admission" didn't come till after misuse to conceal edit-warring. In looking through the page history to analyze and document Jordandlee's behavior, I had seen "Jorduf"'s edits with no idea that they were by the same person, despite his claims that

I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames.

That refers to

("and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf").

In fact, until then he had done nothing like "stating so". That was his first mention anywhere of multiple accounts, not disclosed anywhere until well into my exchanges with him. See Talk: Philadelphia Phillies#thn-counterevidence. And that's on top of, and in support of, his edit-warring. --Thnidu (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misuse to conceal edit warring? They've made 3 total reverts to thar page between 2 accounts. There's no evidence that they tried to hide this and they came out themselves that the accounts are theirs. There's been no illegitimate use of either account shown in any evidence you have provided.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs
The more I've looked into this, the more I see that it isn't primarily a matter of sockpuppetry so much as persistent edit-warring.Here is a still incomplete list of diffs. I can't work any more tonight; tomorrow I'll pick it up again.

I'm collating the diffs for all his edits, starting from his Contributions page and then working through the Revision History of each article he's touched. I haven't gotten to his alter ego Jorduf yet, but there aren't that many there.

Besides Philadelphia Phillies, he's handled Menorah (Hanukkah), Hanukkah, Baseball field, and Peter Bourjos; the big list is in the last of those, which I haven't finished processing. Most or all of the Phillies documentation is above or referenced above; I'll get that into this list after Bourjos.

For each article, the diffs are in chronological order, and unrelated sets of edit and reversion are separated by a blank line. The comments in square brackets are mine.

Menorah (Hanukkah)

• 21:36, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (It is a chanukia, not menorah. I just don't know how to change the name of the article.)
• 21:42, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee to last revision by 78.147.130.162. (TW))

Hanukkah

• 20:20, 28 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Proper terms)
• 20:22, 28 November 2015‎ BethNaught: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk): That spelling is acknowledged, but the article is called "Hanukkah" so we should use that. If you want to change that, file a move request. (TW))
• 18:14, 29 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (A menorah and Hanukia are two entirely different things (look it up before changing if you don't believe me). Also, 'sundown' is the proper term.)
• 20:02, 29 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted good faith edits by Jordandlee (talk): No, you are incorrect. If you have a concern, use the talk page. The page uses hannukahmenorah which is correct. (TW))
• 21:33, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (USE OF PROPER TERMS! DO NOT UNDO! A menorah is NOT the same thing as a Hanukia.)
• 21:34, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Samsara. (TW))

Baseball field

• 21:32, 21 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation errors)
• 17:23, 30 November 2015 Sir Joseph: (→‎Home plate)
• 19:59, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation)
• 20:00, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Warning track: Turned dash into hyphen)
• 21:42, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted to revision 693134844 by Sir Joseph (talk): Rv, to more grammatically correct version. (TW))
• 21:41, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Sir Joseph, please stop trying to undo everything I do. There is a reason why I change it.)
• 21:46, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Sir Joseph. (TW))
• 01:09, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Use of correct punctuation ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES)

Peter Bourjos

• 19:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Phillies)
• 20:02, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (More Phillies)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top: it's still 2015 on my calendar)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎St. Louis Cardinals (2014–present))
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎References)
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎External links)
• 20:15, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 21:51, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473355 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 21:52, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693486357 by Jorduf (talk) Yeah it's still December 2015, we don't know if he'll make the Phillies roster or be cut/traded before the 2016 season.)
• 21:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473647 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:03, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693486518 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:07, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693469794 by 64.9.4.8 (talk))
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693487401 by Jorduf (talk) Seriously? Quit it.)
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 00:56, 3 December 2015‎ 71.229.45.29:
• 00:59, 3 December 2015‎ Muboshgu m: (Reverted edits by 71.229.45.29 (talk) to last version by Yankees10)
• 03:00, 3 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (adding Phillies)
• 03:24, 3 December 2015‎ Yankees10 m: (Reverted edits by Jorduf (talk) to last version by Muboshgu)

Good night. I'll be ba-a-ack! (tomorrow). --Thnidu (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So not a sock but an edit warrior now? Yep, certainly seems to be some editwarring. I notice for instance that on the Philadelphia Phillies He's edit warring with you and you are edit warring against him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

His notice was sockpuppetry and editwarring. As someone who dealt with him I can feel his pain. While I'm not sure a block is the right answer, I think a mentor/warning might do the trick. It took an almost block to get him to the talk page. He does not seem to want to dialogue and could use a basic course on how to Wiki. Sir Joseph 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is half ass. He thanked his other account. A warning against edit warring for everyone will suffice. The appropriate place to take sock puppet allegations is WP:SPI. There's a tendency of new users to edit war, it certainly helps to have older users to lead by example and not themselves edit war. It probably also help to also remember not to bite the new comers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with -Serialjoepsycho-, you were being very hypocritical. As both of you, Sir Joseph and Thnidu, long time editors, told me what to do and not to do, then you immediately proceeded to do them. I'm just wondering how long I have to be editing before I'm allowed to edit war, like the two of you. Jordandlee (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jordandlee: Perhaps you might explain the purpose of your alternate account?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did so on the Phillies' talk page under the section '1980 World Series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandlee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL, Serialjoepsycho, Sir Joseph, Muboshgu, and Jordandlee: Please see the latest exchange between Jordandlee and me at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series. He now understands why I suspected sockpuppetry, and I now understand that he had no such intention and why he was so argumentative about it. That being so, I withdraw the complaint of sockpuppetry.

Serialjoepsycho, I hope you see now that my suspicion was not "half-assed" but reasonable at the time. Also, if you look at the diff list above you will see that most of his edit-warring was with other editors than me.

Looking again at our last exchange on the Phillies talk page, I think Jordandlee has calmed down, and I know that I have. Jordandlee, I hope that you will read those bits I recommended there, as well as looking through the WP: Help area and getting more familiar with how we do things here. For myself, I don't think there's any point now in finishing that diff list.

And with that I think we can close this issue. Jordandlee sees the necessity of considering others' view of a situation, and hopefully will be less quick to dismiss an opposing opinion.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a good night! --Thnidu (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is resolved I'll simply keep the answer to that question to myself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Red herring and User:Clepsydrae

User:Clepsydrae is adding material to Red herring that is clearly opinionated original research synthesis based on material he/she saw on the fictional TV show NCSI. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page but was immediately met with bad faith, calling me "ignorant" which has shut down communication. Given how clearly it violates OR and RS, I would like to see the material reverted and Clepsydrae get consensus for its inclusion through an RfC or other means. Any help appreciated. Thank you. -- GreenC 18:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clepsydrae is edit warring with myself and another editor. I have used up my 3RR for the 24h and won't revert again. -- GreenC 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User Green Cardamom's allegations are unfounded. The user reverted the material twice, once before I had the opportunity to add the references, and a second time after I had added the references, but clearly before ever bothering to review them. I strongly object to his/her use of bureaucratic red tape as a way to force his/her opinion, clearly contrary to the opinions of the references I provided in my edits, onto the Misplaced Pages population as a whole. It's actions like that which "shut down communication." There's absolutely nothing on my user talk page indicating he/she ever even attempted such communication. My first and only indication was a link to this page. Meanwhile, the sources are valid, scholarly material acceptable in any institution of higher learning (I am a university professor), and I strongly object to Green Cardamom's obfuscation of the issue and bureaucratic bullying in reverting a very simple, straightforward, and clarifying addition to a Misplaced Pages article. The reason for Misplaced Pages's existence is to learn, a process that is thwarted when a user closes their mind to anything new or different, particularly when it's well-referenced, and knee-jerk reverts the article to it's old, stagnant, and off-the-mark status. I am new to terms like "OR and RS," but I am NOT new to scholarly research, having earned my first degree more than a quarter century ago, professional associations along the way, and additional degrees since then, with honors (top of my class). Green Cardamom's behavior is NOT scholarly. It's NPOV (I know that term) and anti-learning. Contrary to his/her opinion, he/she is not the expert on the term, and has as much to learn about its history as anyone. I would like to see my latest edit stand as is, and protected from further deletion by those who are apparently married to a falsehood and refusing to examine and follow the substantiating references I provided. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

EO's explanation of the term may be useful: Clepsydrae (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed, Baseball Bugs, and Doug Harper's qualified, scholarly efforts certainly support my addition to the red herring article. Thank you. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of missing link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=red+herring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clepsydrae (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm unable to determine what, exactly, Clepsydrae is objecting to in the article as it stood. He seems to be confusing the use of "red herring" in its literal sense (a type of cured fish) with its metaphorical sense, in which the expression refers to a false lead. Both of these were referred to and dated in the article. It's unclear in what way Clepsydrae thinks the TV show NCIS refutes the previous content of the article, but I agree with the talk-page commenters that it's unacceptable as a reference. (I seem to recall that the only time I watched the show The West Wing, the president made the point that he read Chaucer "in the original Old English". That statement has always seemed to me to exemplify quite effectively the quality of TV writers' research.) Deor (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stood relies almost entirely on the ] of "etymologist Michael Quinion" while simultaneously excluding the qualified research of many other, highly-reputable sources, including Merriam-Webster. True, Quinion is an accomplished scholar. He is not, however, to be considered the only expert on the subject. As near as I can tell, he has no degree at all, having merely "studied physical sciences" at Cambridge University. I have two degrees, several professional credentials as a academician, am working on my PhD, and, like Quinion, I too have a website. That does not, however, qualify me as any more of an expert than Quinion. What qualifies my additional paragraph are the independent third-party references from reputable organizations like Merriam-Webster. And again, folks, please STOP referring to the NCIS description as a "reference." I used it only as a very well-worded description of the origin of the term. The references substantiating its origins as truth, however, came from other sources I included using the references tags. The only reason I referenced the NCIS quote was to avoid plagiarism and give credit for where it was due. Again, the NCIS quote is NOT the authoritative source substantiating the origin of the term. It is merely a very good description. As such, it should be left intact, if for no other reason than as the clearest description available of the historically consistent etymology. The authoritative sources (plural) substantiating the origin of the term came from the other sources I provided. Have I made myself clear? Or will I see yet another off-target comment along these lines? Please do not fixate on what is not important. What is important in the paragraph I created is that it reminds readers that a single individual individual's opinion (Quinon) is not sufficient to counter centuries of etymological documentation to the contrary. It reminds users that one individual's blog post does NOT undermine centuries of contrary research to the contrary. Believing otherwise is, at best, "revisionist history." No! Don't do that. That's not the way academia works! My edits restore at least a glimmer of accuracy backed up by centuries of research in the etymology of the term "red herring," while providing a very good description of the still mainstream consideration of its etymology. If Quinion wants to claim otherwise, he's going to have to do substantially more than a mere blog post, and if Misplaced Pages users want to claim it so, they're going to have to do more than point to a single source. Again, one source does NOT constitute the "status quo" as the article as it stood (stands) wrongly claims. Clepsydrae (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Quinion's article is based, not on his "opinion", but, as he says, on research recently (at the time of his writing) published in the journal Comments on Etymology and accepted by the OED. I'd say that's pretty persuasive. In any case, you need to get consensus on the talk page before adding your material to the article again. Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on an article about a phrase? Because that's very much what it looks to me like Clepsydrae is trying to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of the strengths of either etymologies, Clepsydrae's content is phrased inappropriately, it is more interested in disproving Quinion, than in presenting the alternative theory. Regardless also of what Clepsydrae claims above, his text is using the TV show as a ref and another dubious source to validate the TV show. The alternative theory MAY be valid, but present wording and sourcing certainly is not. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Manualy unblocked user continues disruptions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:FreeatlastChitchat was manualy unblocked (for unkown reasons), and has now started to disrupt Islam related topics again. He also continues with personal attacks, while asked to stop those. Please read the previous reports (by tons of users) on the noticeboard and please re-evaluate the reason for his unblock (see here). He can't continue like this. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat was blocked for edit warring and unblocked because of their promise to adhere to WP:1RR (see User talk:FreeatlastChitchat#December 2015), so it's not an unknown reason for the unblock. I've also notified FreeatlastChitchat of this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearling that up. I had no clue this could be a valid reason to unblock someone considering the massive disruptions (not just editwars) he has caused. Anyway, please investigate him for his recent repeated or egregious personal attacks. As per wikipedia:No_personal_attacks this may lead to sanctions including blocks. He was asked to stop, but instead replied by making his attacks even more insulting. These attacks are one of many (earlier) disruptions of an Islam related topic, considering his past it should be time to make sure he stops now.143.176.216.29 (talk)

Full block (and unblock) log is here: To see it, check the user's contrib's page and select "block log". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the comments mentioned by the OP were made days after the block would have expired so I don't see what we need to review since they would have been able to make the comments at that time regardless of whether or not there was an early unblock. I think the real question is whether or not the comments being linked to are personal attacks and if any action should take place.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by FreeatlastChitchat'. I saw the editing pattern of this IP and commented on the taqiyyah discussion that he was most probably someone who logged out to troll on wikipedia so that his registered account is not hurt. I based my comment on his ability to grasp wikipedia policies even when having only 50 or so edits to his name, and his being able to use wiki jargon without ever having been involved in a situation when its sue was required. However I wanted to give him some rope instead of going straight for investigations/ANI and he hanged himself within the next 72 hours. I am not sure which part of my statement is a personal attack. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The knowledge of wikipedia-terminology can be explained (partly?) by his use of Dutch wikipedia, where he made many edits. And -if we assume good faith regarding his statements that he has no account- I can imagine your suggestion -without proof- that he was socking was taken as insulting. It certainly wasn't helpful in the discussion. I'd say his running to ANI here (with a very suggestive summary of your recent past) was out of line, and his removal of your talk page post was not helpfull. He'd better have pointed you to make either an SPI or stop the suggestions... I have given him some pointers on his tak page to get possibly unblocked ("manually" ;-)) as I think the block now (3 months with talk page revocation) is way too long and based on what I saw on NL wikipedia, he clearly is more than a troll. (That all is assuming he is not User:143.176.62.228 as is suggested by the blocking admin (@Bbb23:), which I of course cannot verify, but the editing pattern and the type of battlefied behaviour seems different). L.tak (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

IP sock

I am here with a previous complaint made by User:Snowded here. I was reverted by the user through another IP sock 78.145.96.44. They use the same edit summaries as the other IPs and had the dignity to return to the same page at Hope not Hate. The previous IPs were blocked for WP:NPA and socking if I recall properly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP just recently tried to remove my thread . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is on the verge of entering edit war on my talk page , but probably will be in that territory once an admin reaches out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please know that I added the ANI notice on their talk page. They just blanked their talk page . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I filed a request for page protection for Hope not Hate. But the IP editor(s) really do need attention, especially given that they're removing ANI reports and edit warring on user talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Geolocate says it is the same physical location as the last two IPs who were blocked and we have a threat of sorts repeated over mutiple user pages. Thanks to User:Callmemirela for being vigilant here. ----Snowded 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Range block requested here earlier today for those interested ----Snowded 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has returned edit warring after a 3-hour block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person

I am requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Misplaced Pages article unless required. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernva (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer not to matter honestly. Is there any chance for a living person to request a speedy deletion and and courtesy blank upon completion out of a right to personal privacy? Or is there a Misplaced Pages version of the right to be forgotten? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at WP:COIN (permalink). – Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. Northernva (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Over at WP:COIN, it's been established that someone created a modest sock farm and created three articles about computer science researchers, all of which are rather favorable to the article subjects. That looks like COI editing. David A. Bray passes the usual tests for notability; he's a high-level Federal official with long articles about him in Forbes and the Huffington Post. He has 114K followers on Twitter.. There's nothing particularly unfavorable in the article; it's rather positive. This seems inconsistent with a request for deletion from Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Misplaced Pages:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not the only one wondering about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's course of action makes sense to me. BMK (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed through OTRS. Have requested it be deleted to remove personal information and recreated as a stub if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. From Bray's comments on the article talk page, the problem seems to be not the current state of the article, but the history. Previous versions of the article had much more personal information.. The reason there's so much personal information is that the article subject self-published a book-length autobiography in 2002. He apparently regrets that now. He's not yet notable enough that he has to have an article. He's chief information officer of the FCC. That's two levels below the FCC commissioners. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and arguments are moving towards deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. We can wait and see how that goes. John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This could be a textbook example of how much better an article subject serves his goals by asking calmly and giving reasons, instead of the usual legal bluster we get from subjects unhappy with their coverage. EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk page harassment and general incivility

I'm involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow wikipedia guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

initial warning

removal by me

restored comment

request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

initial warning from the above editor.

restored comment 1st time

2nd time

3rd time

He has been editing wikipedia for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

also of blatant incivility

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of wikipedia rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Misplaced Pages's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Misplaced Pages noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Misplaced Pages, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Misplaced Pages could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ..

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Misplaced Pages long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey sometimes sockpuppet investigations turn out not to have actionable results and I'm okay with that. I take your word for it AGF that you're not socking now that I know you better. So take this as an apology for the misfire. At the same time may I make one small retort and note that Draft:Dodge Tomahawk does not contain the word "extraordinary". I really think starting with it is the best path forward but we don't need to keep discussing it here; maybe on the draft talkpage instead. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"All blocked editors are evil, otherwise they wouldn't have been blocked" is an obvious fallacy. However the usual wikiexplanation of this is based on the many editors who are blocked, then react badly to it (and may even sock) and that later bad reaction is then seen as an excuse for their blocking, rather than a reaction to it. This supports the clique of "good people" and excludes the newcomers. As such we have to be very careful against it.

I think at least one of these editors was wrongly blocked. I think Dennis' responses to many editors, particularly newer editors breaking the minor rules, isn't as generous as we might like (although few editors, and not myself, manage much better). We're supposed to welcoming of new editors, we certainly need them, and that means putting up with early and minor infractions. Then it means putting up with the same, all over again, if needs be. The alternative is merely reinforcing what's already seen as a clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you changed my words "inability to abide by community standards" to "evil" which is a straw man, also an obvious fallacy. I carefully chose those words to describe Bridge Boy's situation precisely. And laying what you consider to be a wrongly enacted block solely at Dennis's feet is also an error; he is not an administrator and only gets to present his evidence and arguments like anyone else. I hear what you're saying about not forming a clique and actively try to welcome, recruit and enable new editors to all parts of WP, especially the motorcycling article base. Dennis does too, and in fact he created the invite template {{Motorcycling invite}}, among the other "good deeds" I alluded to above, so please give him some credit. I think a GF understanding of the situation here is that there's an established editor (not a cabal) trying to extend the best of the community standards, including high standards of authorship and research, to new editors. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not your words, they're all mine. There's a problem here, it's pervasive, it's a bad one, and several editors are involved it. This is just one example of it (Dennis' involvement summarises here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge Boy will not drop the stick), but nor is it the only one. There is a tendency on WP to turn on new editors and block them permanently (when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of "indef", then this becomes unwarrantedly permanent by default). We need to be careful to avoid doing that, and part of this includes dealing with the same nonsense over and over again if needs be, with a vast amount of patience. There are plenty of outright trolls around, there's no need for us to find ways to lump others in with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Boy was not a "new" editor. He was just a recent incarnation of a long-term abuser, whose earliest account (that I know of) User:LevenBoy began editing all the way back in 2008 up through 2011. His User:Triton Rocker sock was active in 2010. His most recent sock was User:Salty Batter. Before we saw his dark side, Bridge Boy was treated with a warm welcome and kid gloves, all through January, February, March, April, and May of 2012. It wasn't until June, his fifth month of editing with his latest sock account, that I and several others began to lose patience with him. Your accusations that I bite newbies are demonstrably false; anyone can read the record of the gentle help I offered him for during his early months editing on many article talk pages. I created a new barnstar, just for him, to thank him for his edits. You're inventing a narrative about me, a caricature, that doesn't fit the facts.

I guess the only sense I can say I agree with you is that it does seem very much like Spacecowboy420 is Bridge Boy all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Spacecowboy420 and Pete here. In my limited experience of Dennis Bratland, he is liable to adopt eccentric interpretations of sources and then get very personal very quickly when others don't agree with him. It's hard for any of us, let's face it, when we find we are in a minority but Dennis regularly doesn't seem to get the thing about how consensus works. There's a bit of work to be done here; whether it is necessary to enact any formal sanctions at this stage I am not sure. Spacecowboy420, what admin intervention were you looking for here? --John (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For my part, it's clear that Dennis Bratland has a history of personal attacks against other editors, including gross incivility and abuse of any number of behaviour conventions. Don't bite newbies, have a regard for the talk pages of other's etc. etc.

Intimidating and attacking other editors is not how we improve the Misplaced Pages. DB does not admit any misbehaviour in his comments above. In fact he defends his actions.

I think he should be given a chance to admit that his behaviour is improper, and if no acceptable admission is forthcoming, he should be blocked for 24 hours, and warned that similar activities in future will result in longer blocks. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with pete. there should be a short block, as dennis doesnt understand or accept his actions were wrong and have been for some time. once he gets a block he will understand that he wont get away with it in the future and i hope he will change his style. Zachlita (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96

I've tried my best and continued to engage User:Terrorist96 in what I hoped would become a meaningful discussion at Talk:Liberland, but they've instead told me that I have a 'personal problem', that I'm 'undermining' an article, that I'm not being constructive and threatened me to leave. diff

We've been here before over a month ago - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation.

Surely this apparently routine level of casting aspersions and acting as if one owns an article is below the acceptable standard of behavior?

--Joy (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tried your best? Just like how you tried your best to find the flag of Liberland used in a news article before you unilaterally decided that it should be removed? evidence. You start a 'meaningful discussion' by removing something so innate to an article as the flag of a country? And if you don't see what's wrong with that, then it IS a personal problem. I'm not gonna waste my time and explain to you that the flag of a micronation is in fact relevant information to be included in the country infobox template. Yes, your edits have been disruptive and undermining, consisting of solely removing relevant information rather than adding information. Asking you to contribute constructively or leave is not a threat. Please look up the definition of threat. Using such words to try to paint a picture in your favor doesn't help your case when any neutral party can see that there was no threat to you. And yes, we were here a month ago, because you were adamant at removing the infobox from the article. We had an RfC and the consensus was to keep the infobox. Since you lost that argument, you're now back to undermine the infobox as best as you can without removing it. In order for me to cast aspersions, it would require a lack of evidence. I've laid out the evidence. And to accuse me of attempting to 'own' the article is laughable. How about you provide proof of that, lest you be accused of casting aspersions? Terrorist96 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant discussion is at Talk:Liberland#removal_of_trivia which frankly is a terrible section title and is going to cause friction when worded as it was removed "for obvious reasons." I also don't see anyone actually linking to the MOS style section, just people stating it past each other. Terrorist96 (I'm not particularly with the username either) is not being civil either but it would be better if people actually slowed down and explained their thoughts rather than simply stating that "it's obvious" and "per policy" to remove stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the phrase "for obvious reasons" because we've been having a discussion for several months about these various items, and after two RfCs there's still no consensus that the three specific elements I had removed were worthy of inclusion (I have specifically looked at the discussions and haven't found a very coherent argument in favor of keeping them, most of the time people were talking about other issues). Surely at some point we need to apply WP:NOCON. Granted, it's hard to pinpoint the time some of these things became contentious, but because the article was created relatively recently, and has been the topic of AfD and protection because of disruptive edits literally within the first week of its existence, we can't assume that any of it is really settled matter. In any case, the thing that needs to be observed is that TDL has been arguing a similar position (opposed to mine), and they haven't been grossly insulting. That's the kind of behavior that should be promoted, unlike that of Terrorist96. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The two RFCs seem to relate to the infobox and to "promotional elements". If you want to be vague and claim that it's been discussed thoroughly, fine but I can't figure out the prior discussions since it's long arguments in all directions all around. When I ask for a specific citation to the MOSFLAGS section that's at issue, I get "it's the only section that's relevant" with no further explanation and people now stating that they agree (with what I don't know). It's no wonder the discussion hasn't gone anywhere for months, no one wants to be specific. As I stated there, a number of other micronations have flags and the like so I don't get the objection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason the discussion is so vague and opaque is that this is completely uncharted territory for the encyclopedia. There are apparently no definitive reliable sources on micronations that we can rely on and just simply reference and be done with it. We're literally constructing what we think should be encyclopedic coverage of a new concept as we go along. How do you think this issue should be approached? --Joy (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it uncharted territory? A brief glance of Template:Micronations shows a number of articles that have been around for years, most of which I believe have their flag. Now, that's not a particular great reason to have the flag there but at least people should be consistent and either remove them all (per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG or whatever because they aren't really considered countries or other various reasons). Besides, of all the issues with that topic, the flag and coat of arms are the least of my concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my appeals to the spirit of WP:V/WP:RS have been consistently argued against or sidestepped. Do you really think I'd have had more luck convincing people if I had appealed to MoS, which has less weight?

I'm saying it's uncharted because despite the existence of all these policies and guidelines, many of these micronation articles are covered in this dubious manner, and yet more tend to appear whenever someone starts a new project. Liberland is actually great as far as WP:GNG is concerned, but we also had Principality of Ongal and Kingdom of Enclava this year, and who knows how many others. It's hard to argue for consistency in the face of so much inconsistency. --Joy (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want Ricky, you asked a specific question, you got a specific answer. KoshVorlon stated the part of MOSFLAGs he thinks applies, I stated that would be the relevant section but disagreed that it did apply (as did TDL) you still seem to be at a loss. If you look at the history of the talkpage, it has a common theme which is of Joy wanting to remove perfectly valid and sourced information under some sort of misapprehension that having a micronation article on Liberland is somehow promoting it. Now above she thinks its 'uncharted territory'. No its not, there are plenty of micronation articles which has been explained and referenced repeatedly to Joy on the talkpage. Its neither vague nor opaque. Terrorist96 may be getting a bit short, but he is not the only one getting fed up of going in circles over and over again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a flat which section do you think applies? Not you saying "KoshVorlon believes that the only relevant section applies", just a flat "this section says X." There's seven sections to MOSFLAGS along with at a half dozen subsections. I'm just wandering in and I have no zero idea what people want and that's after having read multiple pages with two RFCs (which no weren't all about the flag) and just various disputes. There's disputes in that section alone about a lack of references, about whether it was the "novelty phase" or whatever that was (refer to both the historical considerations, non-sovereign states sections of MOSFLAGS) and then there's the whole flags as icons issue. Is the problem that it's a micronation? Is it the lack of sources? Is it the actual one? It seems like it's now "a flag is an icon" so no matter the sources, no matter the nation's status, it wouldn't be included. Ok, but it's included on pretty much every major country article so if you think MOSFLAGS doesn't support including it here, fine. People keep arguing but when pressed, it's all "the only section that's relevant" and "per MOSFLAGS" and you finally respond that you hate the entire infobox so do you want the flag separate like how Tomás Cloma does it? As I said, I don't actually get what people want and I understand fully why people are disagreeing there when people keep moving the goalposts in response. I get some people think this whole thing is a joke and don't want it treated like a real country (I lean that way) but that doesn't exactly resolve any issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking this. I don't care. If you think rounds of "it's the relevant section" and "the whole thing should be removed" is helpful, that's on you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There's plenty of precedent for dubious coverage in micronation articles already. So people logically assume that Newton's First Law applies and that there is organic consensus to keep things as they are. And then when an even less conventional new country project is started, they just keep applying the same kind of window dressing on its Misplaced Pages article. And then when I challenge that, I'm the bad guy. --Joy (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to demand a change based on one article and I think it's fair for them to disagree based on the inernsia already here. A proper discussion would be at MOSFLAGS about micronations since it's a broader topic (assuming we haven't already had it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], , , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence , , resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See ], ], ], ] and, unfortunately, ].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Misplaced Pages has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like , and
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup all edits by this vandal created just to attack me and this vandal also created just to attack me with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored.
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. even with threats of ANi .
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Misplaced Pages and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Misplaced Pages or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. . Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close and preceded by . He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

COI and BLP issues at an article

Due to the nomination for deletion of M.A.M. Mansoor, bulk of new users and IPs are running COI at M.A.M. Mansoor and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor. Now, they start to attack me/us as racist(s) (See Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor). I am a Wikipedian who contribute for better encyclopedia instead of own policies. I have reported to sock puppet investigation too at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Riyazifarook. Before the COI increase (already started), admin intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --AntanO 06:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for the duration of the AfD to put a stop to obvious socks and meatpuppets attempting to !vote in the article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the AfD either, AntanO. The obvious socks will be ignored by the closing admin. I've removed the attack on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Style changes after final warning: 188.222.58.239

In this edit User:188.222.58.239 changed the spelling of an article from American to English after a final warning about unilateral changes to spelling had been added to the IP editor's talk page. Editor edited Determination of the day of the week, a calendar related subject, before the warning, and the edit of concern for this thread, to Equinox, is also related to calendars, so I conclude the same person is using the IP address before and after the warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous incident with this IP was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#User:188.222.58.239. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling again from Hengistmate

Hengistmate (talk · contribs)

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as ] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DefconBot

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

DefconBot seems to not be working. CatcherStorm 13:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the bot operator to take a look at that. Administrators can only help by blocking the bot if it's becoming disruptive or operating outside of its approved tasks. This error message, doesn't seem to warrant a block. Mike V • Talk 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD needing an uninvolved admin

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

This AfD has been open nearly two weeks, and remains contentious. Recent posts include some poor behavior. Would someone please either close the AfD, or at least hose down those who need it? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, the first AFD was closed on December 5th as Delete. The primary argument in favor of deletion was a lack of sources (most notably anything that confirmed the subject's first name). An additional source was found and the article was recreated on that basis - then renominated a day later on 17 December. Reading through the current AFD... oi. I'm tempted to close it as no consensus, lament the fact that WP:TRAINWRECK isn't a thing, and admonish every involved editor to cool it and go have tea. But a no consensus close will do nothing to sort this out, will it? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll close it in the next hour or so. I, JethroBT 20:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll need a little more time as I want to review the DRV as well... I, JethroBT 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been four hours. RIP I, JethroBT. He died doing what he (presumably) loved: reviewing an AfD. clpo13_(talk) 01:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. And yes, I drastically underestimated how much I needed to evaluate before closing this one (I also had to step away while closing for off-wiki errands). I, JethroBT 02:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JethroBT, for taking the time to make a considered close and for noting the issues around unhelpful behavior. Any decision would have led to objections given the contentious nature of the AfD, so I hope that those who disagree with you can maintain appropriate decorum. EdChem (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for a block

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

I haven't made an edit in quite some time, and you will find that all my edits are legitimate. My account was blocked and I'm unsure as to why. Could an administrator please fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StainlessSteelScorpion (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which account are you referring to. You cant be blocked if your editing this page on this account. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your account is not blocked and as far as I can see it never has been. Are you using other accounts? Otherwise, perhaps you are trying to edit a protected page. Can you explain what error message you are getting when you try to edit? Reyk _YO! 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that I can edit the page now, I'm not sure what happened before. Thank you for your time. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD

Reported to WP:AIV by Amortias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I would appreciate an admin's (or anyone's) eyes on the edits of 2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly misrepresented sources on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases about Phil Donahue's role in "popularizing" the cases (, , ). He/she also has repeatedly put his/her point of view in the lead of the article. This appears to be a case of a single purpose editor with a personal agenda who refuses to try to maintain a neutral point of view. He/she has made comments such as "The truth hurts" and "The truth has to come out" in response to warnings. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Popped it over to AIV definitely here to right great wrongs. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

Appears we have some block evasion going on,

If someone could deal with User:Month48522. Amortias (T)(C) 00:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Reported to AIV. The worst part of this is that they made a typo. Haha! Amaury (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good category for reporting block evasion to AIV so figured would bring it here. Amortias (T)(C) 00:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Either for vandalism or for a username violation. Doesn't really matter. Both are valid reasons. :) Amaury (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Two Editors

Please follow dispute resolution steps to resolve the issues. This is not the place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Editors Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) are ganging up to bully their viewpoints by reverting others edits without waiting for consensus. They engage in ad hominem attacks, do not engage in assuming good faith,and make sweeping dismissive comments without saying anything of substance, sometimes without bothering to read what has already been posted. They cite WP help pages incorrectly and engage in disruptive editing, as well as biting the newcomers. But most importantly, they are reverting helpful edits and accusing others of edit wars before waiting for consensus. Here: Talk:List of notable former Orthodox Jews and here: Off the derech. Lokshin kugel (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll let my edits and comments on the talk page speak for itself. I'll just say that Lokshin is acting like a SPA and thinks he owns the articles in question. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. I reverted, tried to use the talk page, Debresser tries to use the talk page but Lokshin fails to grasp that he can't just revert at will. I fear that if this continues a block may be in order since a SPA is clearly not out to better WIKI. Sir Joseph 04:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of bullying I am talking about. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Intimidating remark

Please take a look at User talk:Legacypac where an IP editor just made a threat of disruption. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional eyes on the Miss Earth series of articles would be appreciated given these comments to my talkpage:

IF YOU WILL NEVER PUT BACK ALL THE INFORMATION YOU DELETED IN WIKIPEDIA especially in MISS EARTH, EXPECT DANGER TO YOUR ACCOUNT!Miss Earth and... Legacypac recently defaced all the biggest information about article of "Miss Earth". Most of the information was shortened and all the important details turned into summarization. Legacypac is now considered by fans of Miss Earth as a big threat in providing correct and precise information.

The topic has a long history of commercial promotion, sock and meat puppets, SEO link building campaigns and editors who appear allergic to anything we call a RS. Forth vandal acct targeting me in about a week - my work must be annoying some people with a non-wiki agenda :) Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Folkprofessor

User:Folkprofessor warned about copyright violations on his talk page. Any further violations can result in a block. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Folkprofessor is an WP:SPA that adds unlicensed images to the article Owsley Stanley‎ claiming they are public domain. They have been removed seven times already. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've given him a copyright violation warning. If he keeps it up, he can be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Also, be sure to sign your talk page messages, like the one you left on his talk page. I signed it for you there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! and thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Continuous uncivil behavior and comments by Akbar the Great

I am reporting this after getting completely fed up, I think it's time for an admin to take over from here, please see the diff for the most recent message this user left me. I completely feel insulted by his comments and feel that it was a personal attack against me. Please also see discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan), about how he accused me of political motivation for that AFD based on some of my userboxes at my user page and I feel that was a personal attack against me as well and the editor had no right to accuse me of that. After reminding him continuously to base his arguments on Misplaced Pages policies, he continues to personally attack me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good candidate for dispute resolution. It may also be good if you both try to avoid each other for a while as it seems you've each gotten under the other's skin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I can consider seeking the dispute resolution as well for the content dispute we have ongoing at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq (from which I have been taking a break for some time) but at this time, I am reporting his conduct. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines

There is person who goes by the username "Shhhhwwww!!", which ironically, doesn't exist, at least the text is red when you click on his username. He's been making random edits on the Filipinos article, and reverting my edits based on "personal preference" of images, not historical significance. He has a history of making random edits, that are inaccurate.

First quote on his revert, "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era and aesthetics, don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable", next quote on revert", on the talk page for the Filipinos article, there was no established rule, ruling out "images of statues" for famous people. Secondly, I did put an edit note. Next quote from his edit, "avoid statues since they are interpretations of appearance not the actual one. photos that obscure the face should also be avoided".

Overall, his username just sounds suspicious. I'm reporting this here, before an edit war ensues, because if I revert his edits, even with explanation, it's going to result in an edit war.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

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

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

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

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

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

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

New user improperly reviewing articles at NPP.

User Thalassaxeno is a relatively new editor (account created December 17, 2015) who has been quite active in new page patrol. They have been asked multiple times by myself and other editors to stop reviewing articles until they are more experienced and understand what they are doing. They are marking pages as reviewed, which removes them from the queue, when they should be marked for deletion. This includes multiple copyright violations as well as many articles whose notability is dubious at best. They have refused to answer requests on their talk page to stop so I really see no other option except administrative intervention. They just need more experience and the understanding of what needs to be deleted and what can be reviewed and marked for cleanup. Until that time happens they really shouldn't be doing new page patrol. --Majora (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards