Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
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)
This is a content issue and belongs on a different noticeboard. If it were a behavioural issue, it's because Asterixf2 turned it into one - a childish fiasco - Ils sont fous, ces editeurs! Boomerang! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV(at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).
In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body, significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)
He raised this issue on articles' talk page , brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard , (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA and instructed here (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).
The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: . He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:
he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.
I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.
On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:
As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.
Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.
P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.
Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Misplaced Pages shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page . BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: . I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary . Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it. (2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Your POV that Mackay is right and the historians I've cited are wrong. That's your opinion (and Mackay's opinion), it's not the undisputed truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Please write precisely what makes it POV, because I have not used Mackay as a reference in this section.here is a link to the section (I could, he is an excellent source, best in the article. I used him in one note in this section but all text is supported by other references and this is just an additional note; for this section my primary source was Broedel - second best modern secondary source in the article out of such 2 :) ) --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"POV" means a specific point of view rather than covering both sides or presenting a neutral version. You keep pushing Mackay's view as absolute truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate for me to distort any of the 2 best secondary sources to accommodate your "approach". It would be also highly scandalous to disregard them. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Clarification I'd like to make clear what is going on to avoid misunderstanding (partially, because there is more nonsense going on like Jenny Gibbons as a source). Not only Ryn78 has hidden section Reception but he is also civil pov pushing since 2013 (now Adamfinmo who thanked him for hiding this section joined him, Adamfinmo repeatedly removes (reverts) my comments in article's talk page. Last time he reverted imprecisely, I commented on the partially left content and he later removed this portion what makes a thread look messy and nonsensical, my new comment with suggestion about article was stricken-through by him, I'm following 1RR there)
Ryn78 argues that Sprenger isn't the co-author. However: (1)ALL secondary sources in the article disagree with him and say Sprenger is co-author (Broedel, Mackay, Summers), Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention that Sprenger could not be an author. (article's bibliography) (2) His claim that Sprenger is not a co-author is supported by citations from 7-page PDF from nowhere, not dated and which looks like a draft and also was discussed in RS noticeboard here. Btw, he floods article with out-of-context cherry-pick statements from this source giving them undue weight. (3)Here is a version with fixed lead section (also with inappropriate content by Ryn78 highlighted, it may be discussed but with WP:DUE and other sources). (4)I have provided 6 citations in this version for joint authorship including ALL secondary sources (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). This is the same version as in point 3 above. I have included in the lead section the statement about authorship controversy as sympathetic towards his perspective as I could. (4)Ritchie333, do you think WP:DRN is going to help in this case? I have doubts about priorities and WP:AGF is very difficult in this case. CC: @TParis and Softlavender:
Let's be clear here I'm not on RYN78's team or anything or the sort, I'm simply trying to get you to participate in a collaborative process. Instead you continue to push your version without gaining consensus. That's why you are on a 1RR right. As for deleting your comments, article talk space is not for discussing editors or simply posting links with out comment. Off topic posts and personal attacks can be summarily removed from talk pages. I did make an imperfect deletion, that you left when you reinserted your off topic link post. It is all fixed now. Can we proceed with building a good article on the talk page? --Adam in MOTalk19:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2: You're repeating a whole slew of misrepresentations that I've already debunked. Just to make this brief since this isn't the place for this type of content dispute: No, "all secondary sources" in the article do not support your view that Sprenger was a co-author. No, there's nothing wrong with the Gibbons article (from an academic journal). The fact that you submitted that source and the Behringer article to Misplaced Pages:Realiable Sources doesn't mean you gained consensus that these are invalid, in fact you met with a lot of opposition on both points. The other points have also been covered ad nauseam on the article talk page, which is where this type of thing needs to be handled. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This thread keeps popping up on my watchlist, mainly because the OP has made 68+ edits to it and to the ANI thread he opened three days previously about the same article:
I agree with admin Ritchie333 that this is a content dispute however one looks at it (and that is also clear from the discussion on this thread), and that Dispute Resolution needs to be applied. Could we please staunch the time-waste and close this (as I said, there have been two ANI threads on this article within three days)? First of all, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and second of all, we don't want to encourage the OP to keep filing on ANI every time he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA. So could someone please close this as a content dispute, unsuitable for ANI? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I'd like to point out that this request for closure was made by an involved editor.he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA I am not an SPA. To call me an SPA because I am currently developing this article and focusing on it is abusive and discrediting. 99% of new content in this article was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have intensified my efforts last month and developed this article (what can be seen on month counts). Previously, I have just tagged various statements in this article. Activity on talk page is due to civil pov pushing by Ryn78. As I understand, I am supposed to discuss with him the points on which we disagree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: And he's still arguing points of content (this time with a gigantic image): . Will someone please explain to Asterixf2 how the various options of WP:DR actually work? And explain to him that ANI is not the place to bring or resolve content issues? And/or simply close this thread so the issues can go to their proper venue? Asterixf2 is a new user, has been on Misplaced Pages only 3 months, has made only 1,500 edits, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum: . Someone needs to shut this endless fruitless ANI thread down so that DR can be implemented. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am here much longer than 3 months, you would need to multiply it. Please avoid misleading information. Of course there was a significant number of edits to Malleus because I got interested in this topic but to some extent this number is due to the dispute. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
To address a point above, DRN is better than ANI because much of the quarrelling has been over content and sources. Over here, we look at conduct and behaviour, while over there it's focused on the merits of your work on MM. Ritchie33310:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to highlight the difficulties, but as nothing can be done I generally agree with you and support the closure. However, I would keep it at least for a few days more so that everybody has a chance to make last comments and be fully aware of the issues discussed here without misunderstandings. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited Asterixf2 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, again, this is not true. For example, RS noticeboard has been used two times , but the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT as far as substantial arguments are concerned. Furthermore, hiding section Reception in html comments is especially nasty and it is absolutely unsubstantiated (see whatpov above and clarification above) that is why I think this is a behavioral issue. Because of this and other aspects, in my opinion this is a behavioral issue. This is disruptive editing due to persistent failure or refusal to "get the point". Please see WP:RUNAWAY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. PS. In the most recent book Mackay explains authorship in an excellent way. Here is my proposed content about it: (theories to the contrary should be described but with proper sources and due weight) --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a behavioral issue at the page and it is you, Asterixf2. How many people have to tell you to try and resolve this dispute before you realize that you are the problem. There have been, at least, five editors who have tried to engage you collaboratively. I'd suggest you drop the stick, before consensus moves toward further topic restriction for you. --Adam in MOTalk19:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do try (this proposal was made before your comment) and will accept reasonable behavior and respond to substantial arguments. I won't give any weight to other arguments even if 4 to 1. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That "proposal" is rather hilarious, if Asterixf2 is serious about it. Either way that "proposal" along with their admission that they aren't here to collaborate with other editors shows that they are clearly a spa and they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that Asterixf2 be indefinitely topic banned from this article across all name spaces.--Adam in MOTalk20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I pointed out that you have not explained to me what it is that you perceive to be wrong so that I can learn sth perhaps. Also, instead of replying to my comment in the way you did, you could have let me know how to change a proposal so that it suits your taste better on my talk page. Unless you didn't want me to change it. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
But I have 2 proposals, if he doesn't agree to those conditions than I prefer the version without the 'most likely' words. If he agrees to those conditions I prefer to insert 'most likely'. Overall result is important. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
How many times would you like me to repeat it? Copy and paste your proposed changes to the talk page, with sources, and we will discuss it. That is how consensus is reached.--Adam in MOTalk23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) I have made twice a meta-comment that you are an involved editor in this article. Please do not repeatedly remove it like here, here and don't format my comments like here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Asterixf2, for heavens sakes stop labeling people's comments here as "involved". That is entirely inappropriate. I've removed your attempted disparagement of this "Request for closure" thread with the same sort of tag (I have made exactly three substantive edits to the Malleus Maleficarum article, and all three were maintenance edits: removal of a clearly non-substantiating footnote , removal of an empty section , and a grammar correction ). If you continue to repost these labels on any editor here, I will request a boomerang on you for opening this content-dispute thread (your second ANI filing about this article in three days) and endlessly maintaining it despite repeated guidance to use WP:DR instead of wasting time on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion your edits weren't pure maintenance. You restored and removed content in the article and discussed those changes on the talk page. You modified article structure by adding and removing sections. But nonetheless, I don't understand why would you insist on removing this meta-comment that you are an involved editor (you were not protesting before to remove, just now after another editor that is involved removed his.) Furthermore, you were providing misleading and incorrect information in this discussion repeatedly. Asterixf223:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal
Durova in this thread wrote This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. (Durova is inactive) Ryn78 constantly edits Joan of Arc and related articles. His contributions. One of the first Ryn78's edits are to Joan of Arc article. He edits this article regularly since then that is since 6 years. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Just want to point out that making sockpuppet allegations against another editor without concrete evidence is considered a personal attack. I've said it before, either put up evidence of your allegations or shut up. And no, your hand wavey, nebulous so-called "evidence" is not sufficient. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Boomerang proposal
Asterixf2 has refused to listen to the suggestions of multiple experienced editors, including admins, to take his issues regarding Malleus Maleficarum to one of the WP:DR processes rather than to continue to argue points of content here on ANI. He has never even attempted to utilize WP:DR, and has failed to gain a consensus that the issues on the article are solely behavioral (every content issue involves behavior until it is properly addressed via WP:DR) or that it cannot be resolved by WP:DR. There is no consensus on this thread that Vami IV or Ryn78 is in the wrong, and this thread is therefore an extensive echo chamber of Asterixf2 arguing points of content, usually with Ryn78. Moreover, Asterixf2 started another ANI thread on Malleus Maleficarum three days before he opened this one (which did not turn out well, but he did not learn his lesson). He has made 130+ edits on the subject of Malleus Maleficarum on ANI . More than 60% of his entire edit history involves Malleus Maleficarum, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. Moreover, he repeatedly utilizes giant colored images and giant colored type to draw attention to his points and to attempt to incriminate others (devices he also utilizes on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum).
Therefore, I propose one or more of the following to put at least a temporary stop the the time-waste and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior:
A temporary topic ban on Malleus Maleficarum, broadly construed, to last at least three to six months.
Closure of this thread and a topic ban on posting on ANI or AN about Malleus Maleficarum.
A ban on the utilization of images, colors, type-sizes, edit-lines, and other such enhancements, in discussions (this would also include tagging of others' posts or labeling them as "involved", etc).
A ban on further replies to this thread.
Any other solution (block?) that others wish to propose.
First, Softlavender is an involved edtior. Second, I'd like to point out that user Softlavender has a record of repeatedly providing incorrect and misleading information in this discussion. In my opinion, her new threads here obfuscate substantial discussion and derail this whole thread. She has already created a Request for closure and this is another one.
Also, in the subsection #Request for closure that she previously started I have answered to the arguments she repeats here. In particular, she is again providing blatantly false information that WP:DR was not used despite being warned previously that this is an incorrect statement. She said previously (above) WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender and to this statement I have replied in subsection #This is a behavioral issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I concurred with all of SL's proposal. I have attempted to engage Asterixf2 multiple times, only to run into the same idht attitude. They routinely edit their posts ex post facto without re-time stamping or otherwise declaring so. They also have a tendency to misuse talk pages to pontificate on other editors. This editor has already stated that they will not abide by the opinions of other editors. Enough is enough. --Adam in MOTalk13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
First, this is about you and not me. You should address your critics. Second, I shouldn't have reverted that comment. I was wrong and it should be restored. Third, that is my IP for my work computer. I have declared so on the talk page. Forth, no shit, I'm involved. I have declared it several times. So how about you take this declaration that I'm definitely involved and stop tagging my comments? The whole world knows I'm involved. This fact does not invalidate anything I have said this far. --Adam in MOTalk15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
First rule of holes; when you find yourself in one Stop digging! You're obnoxious tagging of involved editors posts as "... is an involved editor" is unnecessary. Yes we're all aware, involved parties tend to be the most interested. Could you also stop with the images, random highlighting of words, use of random bold and underlining for emphasis. It just makes it that much harder to read. Register my vote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Close; Just close the thread with no action and a note that Asterix either take this to the article talk page or WP:DRN before they get hit with PBAN or other. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support This thread is almost completely illegible, and it's pretty obvious whose fault that is. I don't think closing with no action would be a good idea -- whatever Asterix thinks he's doing with this bizarre comment style, it doesn't look like he's willing to stop. It also seems like WP:CIR is a serious issue with this user -- see for instance how he refers to both Softlavender and Adamfinmo as "involved users" despite the former not having touched either the Malleus Maleficarum article or its talk page until after this thread opened, and the latter having made only one (obviously good) revert on the talk page before the thread opened. I'm guessing now he will call me an involved user because I edited the page once in 2005? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if she got involved before or after this thread was opened. The nature of edits matter. As far as stopping is concerned, obviously I won't edit this thread if will be closed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support all or any of my proposals, as nominator. As Adam and Hijiri state above, there's clearly an IDHT and CIR issue with this editor, and removing him from the battlefield would probably cause him to learn how to properly edit, collaborate, discuss, and reach consensus and/or dispute resolution. (Cue him yet again tagging me a so-called "involved editor" even though I have only made three maintenance edits to the article, and those only after seeing the endless discussions of the article here on ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This will teach me nothing and your proposal contains blatantly false information that I have not utilized WP:DR. You have not corrected this information. Was this proposal made in bad faith or are you going to correct it? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please click WP:DR, WP:DRR, and WP:DRN. Posts on WP:RSN are not going to resolve, and clearly haven't resolved, the various content disputes on the article (and frankly, even though that and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution). You need to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Ritchie has repeatedly suggested WP:DRN for this article, and since he has looked into the matter I would probably take his suggestion, but any of those four options could work. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note For the sake of context it is important to note that Softlavender is apparently replying to Asterixf2's comment as it existed before they changed it ex post facto.--Adam in MOTalk18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I see she replied 20 minutes after I have corrected "WP:RS" into "WP:DR" . I had changed it before anybody have replied. Thank you for your very, very useful note. PS. policy says that noticeboards are dispute resolution. Her post still contains incorrect information. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Adamfinmo: No, I replied after Asterixf2 had made the change. I replied to the form of the post as it exists now, not to the previous version. To reiterate my point, which apparently he still doesn't get, even though RSN (which filings he has linked to far above) and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution. He needs to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Thank you for your suggestions. Nonetheless, given long discussions on talk page with Ryn78 and his refusal to split issues into dedicated threads, I find your comment unreasonable. Also I don't agree with your opinion about specialized noticeboards because it contradicts policy. I don't say that you are wrong with your suggestions of other DR measures. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have stricken the above because the discussion has not been moved. Discussions cannot be moved without the consent of the editors involved, particularly not ANI discussions, particularly not to user talk pages. And Asterixf2 still does not know what WP:DR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment summary of my position so far is in the first comment of This is a behavioral issue subsection (including clarification and whatpov). Also I have made a note in #For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal above. Hidden section Reception is here. Lead section with 6 citations for coauthorship from my proposal is here: Lead section. This lead section contains citations with quotes for authorship from ALL secondary sources in the article (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). His two highly questionable sources are discussed here and here (both with fierce opposition from user GBRV and without attention from Ryn78) PS. There are going to be further developments in this crisis. I suggest to leave this thread open. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I gotta give it to you. You are consistent. You said you would ignore consensus "even if it is 4 on1". You are true to your word. I implore you, please back down and, at least try to participate in discussion on the talk page.--Adam in MOTalk20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about ignoring consensus but about weight of arguments. Here is the diff. I am going to participate in the discussion on talk page as I did so far. I will insert there the lead section as you asked previously. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Adamfinmo I have copied lead section to the talk page as you asked me to previously - permalink. I have doubts if this is an appropriate approach because proposals should be made in the article probably. Nonetheless, as you asked. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: please remember that with your last revert you discarded my 6,000-long addition. This is just a remainder, not a complaint. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note2: Mackay, Summers and Broedel say there are 2 authors. For example, Broedel consistently uses the phrase of the kind "Institoris and Sprenger do xyz in their book". I am not going to distort those sources. Mackay's position and his explanation is here. In fact, I am on the edge of withdrawing from the idea that "and most likely" should be used in this section. ALL secondary sources adopt a view that HE IS a coauthor. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note3: Also, if he acknowledged that his sources are inappropriate we could constructively think about some other sources to represent Behringer's views. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Part of the reason you are up for an article ban is that you don't seem to understand that content discussions belong on article talk pages, not here.--Adam in MOTalk23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
However, I guess discussions of gross and obvious violations of content policies are appropriate here WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I am open to your suggestions on my talk page if you would like to clarify this aspect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
There was an enormous amount of stuff here today. Since the admins replying here are voting to close this thread, I'm just going to say that I agree; and any other issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There were no votes by admins in this boomerang. Please avoid constant plausible misinformation. I don't have a conclusive opinion about closing or not but only because I don't think I have enough knowledge about conduct to have strong opinions in this case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
While you're correct that no admins have voted on this proposal, this; please avoid constant plausible misinformation was unnecessary. There appears to be no intent in Ryn78's comment to spread misinformation. Many non-regulars who come to the administrator's noticeboards assume that administrator's are the ones commenting on them - barring of course the involved parties themselves - for likely obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please note that this statement doesn't say anything about intentions. I simply point out that I consider what he says to constitute misinformation that in my view may appear to be plausible to some observers. I have not used it initially but now I consider the case related to the article Malleus Maleficarum to be severe. I feel the need to use it in some circumstances. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now at day 10 and still dragging on, there is a clear consensus for a block. In view of this log which does not inspire confidence that there will be an immediate change in behaviour, and considering that the patience and good will of admins such as Boing! said Zebedee and other admins and users here has been tested to the limit, and as DGG suggests, a block is more easily enforceable than a complex topic ban, I am blocking Light2021 for 1 month after which further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In April of 2016, User:Light2021was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedeeaccepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:
many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
blatant misuse of the WP:HOAX template (, , ), and
the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.
I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Misplaced Pages editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Misplaced Pages's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step.Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)(updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))
…but cautiously oppose topic ban. After a couple days of venting Light2021 has promised again to try to be more careful, heed advice, and get along with other editors. I'm convinced that the locus of the problem is not so much what they nominate for deletion but how they have dealt with the deletion discussion. As long as they try, and we all keep a positive spirit, that's fixable. I do believe every editor deserves a second chance, third chance, and hundredth chance, as long as they are trying, listening, and not disrupting things. I do think there needs to be some process involving mentorship, probations, escalating blocks, a warning, I'm not sure how that would be implemented. That's why you all are admins and I'm not :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Misplaced Pages Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Their nominations appear to me good-faith and they've been remarkably good IMO at finding highly deletion-worthy articles - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Be that as it may, there are nominations like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13(talk)17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
My Version/Story Misplaced Pages clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Misplaced Pages article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Misplaced Pages Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Misplaced Pages as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Misplaced Pages. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.
Few Important Misplaced Pages Links I Would like to mention apart from GNC, when and how I do my selections:
If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Misplaced Pages. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.
Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey201018:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010 who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey201019:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. Seraphimblade23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Misplaced Pages, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Misplaced Pages as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination)Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: diff, diff, diff. As denoted above in this discussion, when I asked the user to stop (diff), they didn't recognize or address the problem at all, and instead chose to rant about various other matters (diff, diff). North America19:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I might disagree with your opinions and your ways of dealing things. It does not mean you are wrong or in a similar fashion it does not mean I do not listen to anyone or I am doing things the way I want. I am working in a community, and listen to their perspective. But forced opinion based on biased or simply not liking me for any sort of reason. As done in either Bossy manner (from some editor) or few others. Definitely not you and others as I admire and ready to listen and understand. I present my opinion. I will keep control and will try to put my point in a very precise manner if not so direct (blunt). As I think my writing tone is an issue here, not what I am doing. I think the best for this platform, and definitely not in bad faith as accused by few (not you). Otherwise i would not be here wasting my time. I love this platform and want to contribute my part. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Bringing up legitimate concerns over an editor isn't wikihounding, Might I suggest you re-read WP:AGF - If you have an issue with NA1K then start a new thread and stop derailing this one. –Davey201002:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Davey2010 you need to look what and how you say things. Questioning Admins as if you are the one who knows everything, where your misjudgment and biased is clearly written here. Whole thing is done because of your (including few) personal opinion and disliking of something/Someone. As you can go to any extend by doing anything, such as closing Keep with selective bias where your opinions lacks the neutrality. I can quote where you have closed AfD so early without getting to en end, on the other hand other clear Delete judgement are being Missed by you accidentally? closing DealDash with no reasoning. and many others. Even this Whole ANI is biased and being ignoring efforts of others, and counting only selective things to build and arguments. and Even try to forcing opinion like the other one is doing above in a bossy manner. No doubt you both are "Non-Admins" for such biased and selective opinions. As far as I know, David has clean history being an admin. I doubt yours. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest you stop blaming others and look in the mirror - The only person at fault here is you!, I have far more productive things to do on here than to get into a mud-slinging match with you. –Davey201011:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - Sadly previous attempts by the community to work with this editor have not been productive. The battleground behavior and casting of aspersions by this user is not a one-off occurance, it is a continuing pattern of disruption that merits a 1 year Time Out in deletion areas, widely construed. There are lots of other non-deletion areas of this site to constructively work on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
No Surprise! This is coming from the person whose argument and discuss failed to keep many articles on AfD that I nominated. I understand your disappointments clearly. There are many I disappointed because I have to be not much likable If I am into Speedy Deletions/ AfD business on Misplaced Pages. There are few others if they come here and want to desperately block me. So for some time peacefully people like you can support filthy amount of Spam that is going on to ruin the whole credibility of Misplaced Pages. this is what you call "battleground". Please judge me by my actions and efforts I put on this wikipedia. Not by mere opinion by few people. Reality and Opinion will come out by wisdom. Please note those Supporters of Block me are no admins in most of cases. They have their opinions and sheer disappointment with me with definite reasons I understand. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
support TBAN from deletion activitygive some WP:ROPE in light of this post Light2021's goals in identifying "articles" that are actually advertisements and trying to get rid of them are great, but the way they are going about it is disruptive. Their behavior sucks time away from people who would otherwise be building and maintaining content or even working to clean up promotion other than what Light2021 has identified. So I support restricting them from their main topic of disruption. Light2021's pattern of not allowing community processes to take their time, not respecting consensus decisions (e.g. with the renominations) and not listening to what others say, shows a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, the foundation of this whole place. So I am not hopeful they will stop being disruptive. Light2021 you need to take the fact that the work here is done in a community, much more seriously. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, but few people have corrupted and even gone so far misusing this platform. by such things Misplaced Pages has become a place for such articles. Because many people have come here and degraded its value for their own benefit or making money out of it. If that is consensus made by such people. I might even Go away from here. As this has become corrupt with such practices. Tell me how many articles were not worthy of deletion as per Misplaced Pages quality. if it even cross 5% I will leave right now. Else you have your mind to judge me. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and apply a topic ban already, or else a short-term block while we sort it out? In the past few hours, even as this discussion progresses, they're taunting, accusing, and haranguing other editors on the DealDash page and likely elsewhere, with paranoid rants on deletion pages and article talk pages about how editors are out to get them. Also, a bad speedy nomination about an article used as a source for DealDash. Frankly, it looks like a Misplaced Pages meltdown. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring the article page too. The meltdown is particularly obvious if you look at the current version of their talk page. It seems they've melted down before if you look at the block log. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is what i get " So stop fucking pinging me for fucksake, If you ave an issue with me then drag me to ANI otherwise sod off and leave me be" from Davey and people like Wikidemon. they have harassed me to the depth of their Bad and even pathetic behavior. Reverted all my contribution. They need a Block from Misplaced Pages. They have blatantly misused this platform and their rights. They are removing my tags. How can I raise a request to Block them. Help. Light2021 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you have been mislead by Selective Links given by users. Because of this you are able to see only Selective opinion putting in your mind none other than but few users who even started this Biased ANI in a first place. Light2021 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block - The mass warning templates on my talkpage is disruptive and IMO is enough for a block, The user has also been posting attacks etc on the DealDash talkpage as well as their talkpage too, Anyway I'll be honest - like anyone on this project If I mass-templated someone with 7 warnings in the space of 5 minutes (when that editor hasn't been on) I too would expect a long block - There's no excuse for it - It's disruptive editing on all forms, Thanks, –Davey201013:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block topic ban This is a case where, if the block topic ban was iffy at the start of this thread, it isn't any more. I think WP:ROPE is now in play. User:EEng's observation about language and WP:CIR are apt, as well. David in DC (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment – I believe in allowing users some time to both acknowledge community concerns and to demonstrate a will to be civil, but this just keeps continuing. As I stated in my comment above, the user has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users. Just at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DealDash alone, there are multiple insults and statements against users in negative, inappropriate manners, such as referring to users as "the manipulators", "the biased one", "intellectually incapable", "good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills", "any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep" (diff), "your intend are clear as water" (diff), "your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here." (diff). The aspersions and continuance of bad faith statements against others needs to stop. North America16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Final comments / story from my ends Thanks for reading what I have to say. The foremost concern for all this ANI is My AfD was objected and even questioned my Accuracy. Spam and bad Article is everyone's concern on Misplaced Pages. That is why we are even here in the first place. We all want to do our best to make this platform. From the time I have been here in ANI. My past AfD are getting stronger results with Delete (Even non Consensus). They are coming up with over 99% accuracy. On the other hand if you go for No Consensus here. it should be clear I clearly did not make so much bad AfD, as being accused or being tagged with. I think as far as I have gone through AfD people here. My accuracy is good for all. But I understand My behaviour was not the just to explain myself or putting my point in Light to others. I take responsibility that my point of view and writing was not as expected and created by wikipedia. I have taken note by DGG and Brianhe on my Talk page. and Will read and keep their sound and very authentic, and neutral suggestions to implement. As they have denoted what need to be corrected from my ends. But to all of the community, My intentioans are not in anyone Bad Faith. I want to do as good as other intend to be. I am improving my accuracy day by day. Soon I will achieve 100% accuracy. Right now it is getting to 99%. Thank you for all your advises and reading my final story and version here. Light2021 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support I think it is pretty clear from this thread, and the links in it, this user lacks, the basic English language competence, and the temperament to engage in this topic space. They should be insta-blocked if they continue to harassing other editors. That behavior is outrageous. --Adam in MOTalk00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support block - I am one of the "manipulators" as accused by LIght2021. I was going to let this ANI run its course but based on their suggestion -
"CNMall41" you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta."
I am here to voice my opinion for what it's worth. User has made some good recommendations during their editing, many of which I have voted to !delete inline with their suggestions. However, there has also been a large level of disruption, assuming bad faith, and lack of competency which has taken up too much of people's time. I think I am more confused as to why user was not blocked for the attacks on other editors and then let to appeal to an admin if they feel their conduct did not justify the block. I have seen too many people get blocked for less conduct (and rightfully so), while this conduct still takes place by Light2021. I hate to see people blocked, but it is evident from user failing to take advice from experienced editors and administrators on their talk page, here at ANI, the previous block, and continued disruptive conduct, that editor needs to back away fro Misplaced Pages long enough to understand that the community works on consensus and cannot be subject to a bull run free in a china shop.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to oppose a block. CIR would be the nearest reason, though it seems to be also stubbornness. If we did a topic ban, it would have to be not just deletion process, but discussions about deletion. A block would be simpler to enforce. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
1) I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community
2) I will stop discussing other contributors
3) I will stop bludgeoning deletion discussions
4) I will respect consensus decisions.
Above points are my acceptance that I must have deflected from my path on putting my points as expected by WP community. I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me. As I understand It would be better for me to learn more first than contribute here. As community is very humble taking my point of view into considerations.
I am not an admin but this was the advice I gave. the post above is a bit rote, but on that basis and this comment they made on their talk page, i think per WP:ROPE we can table this and revisit if Light2021 does not actually change their behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog: Light2021 was already given ROPE, many times. They are on the rope from their last block, where they exhibited the exact same pattern of disruptive behavior. The diff you supply looks good if taken out of context. But when one considers that Light2012 continued their personal attacks after leaving that message, it looks very very very bad. Exact same pattern as after the users last series of blocks -- they are polite and say sorry sorry, and then they went right back to the disruptive behavior. Boy, Wolf, Cry. Do we really need to repeat this disruption AGAIN? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I hear that. the dif i gave to their talk page, they made at19:37, 7 November 2016, and then they wrote these two comments at DGG's talk page; 2 cracks at Cunard. In the advice i gave them, I suggested that they not talk about other editors at all. If - and it is a big if - folks want to give more ROPE to see if Light can stick to that, that should be a very short leash. Very. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Self-report of this account (GhostTownsMapper) and NorwayHS4 as circumvention socks
I will unblock User:GhostTownsMapper in a little while, based on clear consensus in this thread, and feedback from a Checkuser since the original block was a {{checkuserblock}}. Just need to figure out which account he wishes to use, and come up with precise unblock restrictions. The only restiction mentioned below is "no socking", but I'm going to insist they be on their best behavior in the areas of their previous problematic editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance you probably believe I am a hacker or something, since things like this probably rarely happen, though I assure you not.
I only just remembered I had these two accounts just now, because I had stopped editing Misplaced Pages because I was worrying about if my edits would be reverted if I was found, etc. However, today I did remember these accounts (I knew I had two, but I did not remember the usernames), and decided to admit because eventually they'd be found anyway, and it was wrong of me to sock in the first place.
I would like to issue an apology to everyone I have lied and attacked wrongly, including but not limited to Jéské Couriano:, PhilKnight:, Origamite:, Huon:, and Kinu:. They were simply doing their jobs and quite obviously I made their job harder by socking and disrupting. It's easy to do things online you wouldn't normally do in real life because you feel more anonymous and that your face can't be matched with your actions.
Why I would have decided to vandalize Misplaced Pages and violate a myriad of policies I honestly do not think I myself will know. At the time I was a normal user who had edited since 2012 and had no blocks or bans, though I did have some issues understanding the notability policies. I was working on a project for school in relation to the book Chasing Lincoln's Killer and that was why I was on the Ford's Theatre page. I was getting annoyed, bored and was having problems with MS Word, so I purposefully began overlinking. At the time, I found it to have been a funny joke, and I ignored at the time that Misplaced Pages is not a place for page jokes.
And, so then, when people connected the dots, I panicked and tried to cover the whole thing up. No lies worked and in the end I gave up for a while after my talk access was revoked.
Later, I created another account and began editing, I suppose one could say it was some sort of Wiki-withdrawal or something. Of course, later I was found again and blocked.
And I did the same thing again, and each time pretty much panicked over it. I worried if people would find out and dislike me for it or something, and that's why I kept socking. It spiraled out of control, but then I began to panic over if I would never be allowed to return to Misplaced Pages without socking. I began to stop editing, and eventually, stopped completely.
I am guessing someone will bring up the whole Tym_Avi incident of this account, and it is the whole truth that that was not me. I was at school and the person who wrote that was someone I knew there, who asked for syntax help and such. (Since then, that person has gone to another school.) I did find the article quite dubious but gave the benefit of the doubt, which in the end resulted in an IP block, after which I panicked and that's why I submitted unblock requests instead of just letting them stand and waiting until school ended.
I only hope that eventually I may be able to come back to Misplaced Pages, but instead by the proper way of submitting an unblock request. Circumventing the block only stressed me out worrying about if I would be discovered.
If anyone has questions about this I will answer them. If anyone needs some sort of proof of identity, well, I don't know if I can entirely give that but my IP address should help back my case a bit.
OK I have a few questions. Sparing everyone from digging around, what is your first (sock master) account? Are you currently blocked or banned? If so for what reason and when were the sanctions applied? Thank you for your honesty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:(Of all things to skip saying, I skip saying what my original account was... wow) I was User:TZLNCTV, and am currently indeffed for socking and that was done Feb. 12, 2015.
Thank you. I do appreciate the honesty here but this is still a serious breach of the community's rules and trust. I am not going to make any immediate recommendations for the moment. I would like to to think about this maybe overnight and get some input from others before proposing or supporting any additional sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's been a while since any of the accounts you've mentioned have been active. Close enough to the 6 months of WP:Standard offer for my satisfaction, unless you've done any deliberately bad editing since April. Have you? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a very sincere post from an editor who wants to return and be productive. The initial conduct that lead to the indef was obnoxious, but not particularly destructive. I think that if the user agrees to a restriction of operating only one account (no secondary accounts for any reason), then they should be unblocked. agtx04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Since Mike V has wandered in and blocked these two accounts, thus ensuring nobody will ever bother to come forward again for fear of the same, let's have a poll to see if we should unblock them:
Support unblock - as they appear sincere in their attempt to reconcile with the Misplaced Pages community I would be happy to give them a second (umpteenth in a sense due to the multiple sock abuse blocks) chance. I can't really criticize Mike V for their block, though, a message to the editor telling them they're blocked until a community decision is made as to whether they should be allowed back in may have been helpful to them. That is assuming that a consensus to unblock here will be accepted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
While Mike V's block was technically correct and in accordance with policy, a part of me wonders if it was truly necessary. Sure, if GhostTownsMapper suddenly goes on a vandalism spree, block away, but I don't think it's likely. Ritchie33312:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel much the same, I wouldn't personally have called for a block but understand the procedural reasons for doing so. Ah well, I just hope Ghost sticks around and let's bureaucracy take its slow course for a few days or more as necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Standard Offer for TZLNCTV, the original account. I thought about this overnight and I agree with several of the above posters. Enough time has elapse and there is clear evidence of regret over previous actions and a desire to return as a productive member of the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock - Give em a chance if he wants to join us and help the project. In a way, he reminds me of me going 10 years back. Look at my very first contributions... I got into vandal fighting simply because I was so amazed that users who weren't administrators could revert and warn users - been doing it ever since. Best case scenario? He becomes a good editor and this only holds him back for a short time. Worst case scenario? The stripes are revealed and we just block again. ~Oshwah~15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock for either GhostTownsMapper or TZLNCTV. This is exactly the approach I'd like to see blocked users take to regain their editing privileges. Huon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Point of order: Since the original block of TZLNCTV was a {{checkuserblock}}, I'm concerned any lowly admin that wanders by and sees this might unblock based on a consensus to unblock, without realizing that policy apparently requires the OK of a checkuser first. So I suggest a CU be consulted. I assume their role would be to confirm no socking has been going on in the last 5-6 months. I'm just letting you know about the policy, not defending it. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Small trout to Mike V for the blocks, since the person was in dialogue with us and not disrupting anything as far as anyone could tell (blocks are supposed to be preventive). Would have been better to leave one unblocked so discussion could continue here instead of through user talk relay (plus per Ritchie333's comment). Re the longer term block, standard offer looks ok to me, conditional on CU. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
CheckUser is stale for the master. GhostTownsMapper and NorwayHS4 are Confirmed to each other. I see no sleepers in that range for the last 90 days. Katie22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock. One thing I'm sure a lot of others appreciate and that is honesty. This is a clear good faith attempt to come clean. Blocking was process for the sake of process and a bit of IAR would have been a better use of time. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblock It seems a rare enough occurrence these days that we are asked for a SO and the bargain has been upheld with no socking. The conditions would seem to be fulfilled, and the request humble and in good faith. Also agree Mike V should dine mightily off fresh trout tonight :) Muffled10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing by Wesco482
Indef blocked. If they want to continue editing, they can file an unblock request addressing these issues like anyone else has to do. Ignoring community feedback about your editing behavior isn't an option. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since 2014, Wesco482 has been making edits that go against MOS and has received several warnings not to do so, but has continued to ignore them. As far back as July 2014, I've warned the user to not add unsourced claims, which the user continues to do so. On May 2015, Wesco was uploading extra images of an album and singles without a proper rationale and was warned not to do so here, here, and here, and here. But the user continued to upload those images anyway despite receiving a block. Last month, 88marcus told the user to stop using 45worlds.com as a source because it is a website that allows anyone to submit, but has ignored that and I gave the user a reminder to not use that website. Then the user was unnecessarily capitalizing section headings (link), and told to stop after doing so repeatedly. The final straw was Wesco482 re-creating song articles about Gloria Estefan that does not meet WP:NSONGS. The user twice reverted my edit (here and here). On top of that, re-rectead Lejos de Ti with another article with different capitalization (as seen here). On that same revision, you can see that the user uploaded extra images of the single cover, showing that user has learned nothing from the last block. As you can see, the user has shown over and over to be refusing to get the point and it needs to stop. Erick (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Indef block: Wesco482 has little promises to keep, and of what Erick is saying all comes to true, then the time is right to give the disruptive editor some more time to think it over before any further damage occurs. SportsLair (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Block. Needs some sort of block to stop his endless disruptive behavior. To get unblocked he needs to demonstrate understanding of what he's doing wrong and agree not to do it anymore. Does he do anything constructive? If not, might as well be an indefinite block (which is just as easy to request unblock as a finite block). Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Block : I'm already in agreement with blocking this user citing WP:COMPETENCE , but remember how blocks are supposed to prevent? Well, look at MagicianDude (Erick)'s update just above, I like to think there's proof that a block will 'prevent' further trouble. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support some sort of block but not Indef (yet). I'm not convinced that this is a case of NOTHERE but I do agree that we need to put some kind of Stop Sign in front of this editor that will get their attention and hopefully encourage a course correction. Maybe a week long time out? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Considering that the user has already been blocked before but is still doing the same thing, I am doubtful that a temporary block will suffice. Erick (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Felsic2
Per Drmies 'No' - we don't block or ban for content disputes. WP:DRN is thataway. My standard issue weapon for 6 years was the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle and I didn't have the foggiest idea whether it was a 'battle gun' or a 'full-power selective-fire rifle'. All I knew was that depending on the setting, if you pulled the trigger either one or a lot of bullets came out of the other end. So I'm not sure about Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Felsic2 has just added a false reference to the Automatic rifle page. He claims that the FG-42 is a "battle rifle" while the reference clearly refers to it as "(a full-power selective-fire rifle)". The full paragraph quote from pages 19 & 20 states..."While a sixteen- to eighteen-pound Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) could reasonably handle the recoil of its .30-06 chambering, when such a powerful cartridge was fired in a rifle of conventional weight (eight to ten pounds) things were very different. The Germans did field the FG-42 (a full-power selective-fire rifle) in very limited numbers, primarily to its airborne units. The success with such weapons was mixed, and the concept never caught on after the war. The conclusion to this matter is the FAL performed best in semi-auto, as do all battle rifles. While some nations adopted select-fire versions of the FAL, The British opted for the semi-auto only rifle when they chose the L1A1 as their standard service rifle". Felsic has been playing this little game (of manipulating the wording) for many months. See...Talk:AR-15, Talk:AR-15 variant, Talk:Colt AR-15, Talk:M16 rifle to name a few pages. I recommend an indefinite firearms topic ban.--RAF910 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering that our article on the FG 42 does explicitly say it's a battle rifle, there doesn't seem to be much merit to this specific complaint, but Felsic2 in general has had a long history of bad behavior. ansh66623:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have made necessary corrections and added appropriate references to the FG-42 page....As for the the reason we are here, I respectfully disagree, according to Misplaced Pages:Fictitious_references "The use of fictitious references is a form of gaming the system to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia." Especially, by someone who has a history of gaming the system and making provocative edits to seemly annoy his fellow editors. See....Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms #Section move. I believe this shows a pattern of bad behavior.--RAF910 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not a false reference. Taking the whole chapter in context, it seems to me that the author of The Battle Rifle: Development and Use Since World War II is referring to the FG 42 as a battle rifle. The definition of a "battle rifle" is an automatic rifle firing a "full-power rifle cartridge", such as a 7.62×54mmR. The FG 42 is an automatic rifle that fires a 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge.
It is a bit odd that you're accusing me of a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy for what may be a disputed citation since you yourself had to concede that you'd recently provided a series of citations which didn't support a claim in an article. Incorrect citations are a problem that should be addressed wherever found, but getting something wrong isn't a crime.
As Ansh666 pointed out, the FG 42 article described that firearm as a "battle rifle", and had done so for many years until you just now changed it, ignoring the talk page discussion.
When you found this supposed error, did you come apply a clean-up tag? No. Did you go to the talk page to raise your concern? No. Did you make any effort to resolve the dispute? No. Instead you came straight here to the admins board to demand that I be topic banned. This doesn't feel like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it feels like an effort to get someone with opposing views banned. You have been coming after me for months. It's beginning to feel like harassment.
I am a productive member of Misplaced Pages's editing community, including on the firearms topic. The Coordinator of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms, @Mike Searson:, has repeatedly thanked me for my edits.
Please don't cast aspersions, like accusations of "gaming the system". I edit in good faith. Please use article talk pages to resolve content disputes rather than just reverting or crying foul. Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, Felsic is a highly combative editor. He is also totally incompetent on the firearm subject matter. His most recent edit to the Misplaced Pages:Help desk states...
"Colt currently doesn't sell any products that it calls "AR-15". I'm not aware of any trademark enforcement activities.
There are a couple of problems with being unable to write about the generic product. One of the biggest is that many, perhaps the majority, of sources simply refer to the "AR-15". Not the "Colt AR-15" or the "Armalite AR-15" or "AR-15 variant". For example, let's say a source says "The AR-15 is the most popular type of rifle in America." Where do we summarize that source's information? Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"
Anyone, with even the most basic firearm knowledge know full well that Colt is still selling AR-15s. There is also this thing called the internet where this information can be easily found. Therefore, Felsic is clearly not interested in doing research. Only pushing his POV. I've now change my mind and I am calling for an indefinite block. --RAF910 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh...RAF910, so a "battle rifle" is not a "a full-power selective-fire rifle"? Well now--pardon me for not knowing that--looks like a content dispute for you all to discuss civilly on the talk page, not at ANI. In other words, I have no idea what Felsic is supposed to have done wrong here. Nor do I see the combativeness anywhere--unless you mean their rebuttal. Now, if someone is dragged to ANI and tries to defend themselves, and that defense is seen as combativeness for which they need to be blocked, there's something seriously wrong here--I'm remind of the opening lines of "Prophets of Rage". And Felsic makes a mistake about Colt selling or not selling this or that product, and deserves an indefinite ban for that? No. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extra admin eyes
Can I get some admins to watch Draft:Andrew Turner (RAF officer)? The main editor's been ordered/hired to write this article using content plagiarised from the website given in the second decline notice there, and I have no doubt he or someone else will try to do so again as long as that order stands. At present the content (the career and education sections) should be removed. —Jeremyv^_^v07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You'd think an Officer in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire and member of the Upper Thames Rowing Club would have the sense not to embarrass himself this way. See WP:YOURSELF. EEng16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
He's now claiming not to be Andrew Turner despite the comments on the upload page. I also note that his username is an obvious abbreviation of "Air Officer Commanding No 22 Group" which is Andrew Turner's current post. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Setting aside for the moment the glaring deficiencies on the draft article, the subject almost certainly meets WP:BASIC. So we really should have an article on him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I've added it to my watchlist and completed the revdel. In its current form, though, it is not suitable for inclusion, IMO, and the references do not demonstrate significant coverage as yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm sorry if this the draft article did not meet the requirements of review. To clarify a few things, I am trying to add this article on behalf of AVM Turner who is aware that notable (in this case Air Rank) military officers are on Misplaced Pages and that it represents an interest article for those interested in the RAF. Indeed there is an article for No. 22 Group which cites him as the current commander and currently has a deadend link. I am, however, new to Misplaced Pages and acknowledge that the comments on the photo I uploaded confused matters somewhat. There is clearly a lot of rigour applied to review of each article, and in haste I have clearly not done everything correctly. I discussed the copyright issues with someone on the Help chat forum and the offending paragraph was removed. I will attempt to rewrite it, however I'm aware that paraphrasing is also not allowed and so I'm not sure how I will do this yet. I would greatly appreciate further advice and assistance to get this article online. I'm not sure what WP:BASIC is? But it seems user Ad Orientem agrees the article should exist. What do I need to do to help this happen? Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.Aoc22gp (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It has now been speedy deleted, so the discussion is moot. However I agree with Ad Orientem that Turner likely meets WP:BASIC, and it should be possible to create a workable article once some better sourcing has been worked out. Unless people object I would be happy to have a go at doing this, liaising with Aoc22gp where that's helpful for information. Not a top priority for me, but shouldn't take too long. But on a related note, could somebody advise whether Aoc22gp breaches WP:ORGNAME? It would be nice to have that sorted before starting work. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
We have a commitment to stopping NPP over on Tiven2240's talk page, and I'm convinced it's genuine and that we just have an over-enthusiastic new contributor here. I think it's reasonable to close this now as resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tiven2240 has recently been using the page curation tool to make a series of tags/reviews that I would characterize as not being a careful use of the tool. I see several incorrect BLPPRODs , ,, (last one the tag was removed by Tiven2240 after placement). Tiven has also placed other tags on several articles that don't fit the issue described , , and in the first case linked, unreviewed the article that I had PRODed. Other users have noted these issues on the user talk page, and while I think this is well intentioned, it is also a disruptive use of the curation tool that the recent changes to that permission were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I left a request on their talk page asking them to voluntarily stop using the tool, gain some experience and then look for a mentor. I hope they'll take the advice but if they don't we can take measures.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I was bringing it here because it seemed to me that they might have been grandfathered into the usergroup for reviewers before making these patrols, but what I find interesting is that from what I can tell, they aren't in the reviewer group so shouldn't be able to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed to begin with. This seems like a technical problem to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: & @Sphilbrick:: I'm on my phone so can't quickly check whether they've been 'grandfathered' - but as it stands (until Thursday if my memory serves me right - Xaosflux might be able to confirm?) any autoconfirmed user can still access Page Curation & mark pages as patrolled. Once the patch is deployed, they will no longer technically be able to do this without an application at WP:PERM/NPR if not already grandfathered in. Mike1901 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Mike1901 Tiven2240 has not been added to the new group, so will currently loose this access along with everyone else once phase 2 of the patch is processed. The "grandfathering" process is still a mess, see WT:NPR for more discussion on that. Tiven2240 is not on current outstanding lists to be processed, so right now would be expected to apply at WP:PERM if desired. — xaosflux15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I confess I wasn't sure whether anyone could use the tools or one had to have a certain status to use the tool, but part of my reason for making my request voluntary is that I think in many cases of suboptimal editing activity, the best first option is to request a voluntary change in approach while they get up to speed with the right protocol and only if that fails should we institute more coercive responses.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. When the second phase of the patch roles out, it won't be an issue, and hopefully your warning will do the trick until then. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Tiven2240 has continued to use the Page Curation tool and has insisted that "after a long study of how to use the tool I have come to know how to use it properly". I've followed up with a sterner message, telling Tiven2240 to stop doing page curation or face a block (with an explanation of why they should stop). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
...and has, since Boing's warning, created a new page which is an obvious copyvio. I've posted a follow-up response on their Talk, encouraging them to take BsZ's advice on board. Mike1901 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, there's an edit war at Graph database with User:Tmobii continually adding material into the article. This editor also uses a variety of IP Addresses such as 72.2.235.253, 172.56.7.186, 172.56.6.25, 12.125.215.110, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/172.250.202.176 172.250.202.176], etc. Before Tmobii set up a login account, I requested that the article is protected so that only registered users could edit. During that time, the article was stable, no edits were made, but neither was Tmobii interested in discussing on the Talk page. The heart of the dispute is a content distpute where Tmobii insists that a product that he is associated with is notable enough for inclusion in the list in the article, despite a number of editors disagreeing including User:Kgfleischmann, User:Michaelmalak and User:Mark viking. I'm not sure of the next step - a temporary block may not be very effective as this editor seems to travel a lot and can therefore edit from lots of IP addresses without logging in, as they have demonstrated already. -- HighKing15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Graph database. If User:Tmobii continues to make this addition without having consensus for it on the talk page you might report again. His arguments for notability don't seem to be based on Misplaced Pages policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please hear from both sides before making a judgement, and let me lay out my case:
- There has been consensus on Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB for at least half a year, since 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343 which was added by user Levlev32 and removed by an anonymous IP https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 for an invalid reason.
- Then user D3x0r restored it in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674 .
- Then user Michaelmalak (who is an employee of Oracle and has a conflict of interest) reverted.
- A discussion page formed where a long list of arguments were laid out for notability, and I got involved and followed/abided by the requests for list inclusion.
- But users HighKing, Mark viking, and Michaelmalak kept changing the requirements, and rejected the arguments for arbitrary personal reasons like "The definition of Secondary sources would (IMHO) exclude...", and sparked a revert war.
- I encouraged we continue to discuss, but user HighKing started threatening to ban me and wanted to shut down the discussion saying "best way forward is for me to disengage from responding".
- Then user HighKing complained to user EdJohnston, who I am now appealing to to hear my case.
- Finally, if we look at the facts the consensus count is the 4 listed above who have opposed to Levlev32, D3x0r, me, and another editor who left this unsigned note in the talk page referencing this discussion: '...cite convinces me. I don't know if it would convince User:HighKing, who did the initial purge. No one "moderates" this article. All Misplaced Pages users are equal editors.'
- Thank you for hearing my appeal, I will also attempt to personally contact you where necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Agtx: I was unaware of your report when I reverted the addition of the 'new' template on the 'Flag of Ukraine' article. Would you like me to revert the outstanding additions before other editors add to the articles. At the rate the user is going, it will probably be too late for a mass rollback. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea. Since the user isn't responding, I feel ok calling it vandalism and starting to rollback. agtx23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There's something seriously WP:NOTHERE about the user. All notifications are being ignored and deleted from their talk page, and the editor is having strange interactions with him/herself here and here. Could it be a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Whatever the problem is, it's getting extremely disruptive and drawing in more and more editors + refactoring this thread on the noticeboard here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Found a little sockfarm there. All blocked now, awaiting tags once the SPI clerking is done. Thanks all. Katie02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Yeah, I had thought of that, but then it seemed to me that if the creator is a sock then their various creations might need a speedy rather than a discussion... Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking through CFD and CSD, I can't really see how these categories would normally qualify, but, that being said, I don't see why they couldn't just be deleted on the rationale that an indef blocked sockmaster created them. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Polemic after block for personal attacks
Requesting a longer block for User:JuanRiley. His talk page edits since last block for personal attacks have consisted of a laundry list of complaints against the same editor the personal attacks were against. The point of all this is to prove that User:N0n3up was wikihounding JuanRiley, and therefore all the personal attacks were OK. This is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and evidence that JuanRiley doesn't get why he was blocked, i.e. WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT. Much of this content isn't even diffs that could be useed in a dispute; rather it's more taunts and name calling against N0n3up on JuanRiley's talk page, which is exactly what he was blocked for the first time. A longer block is necessary as a final warning to either help build an encyclopedia, or cease editing altogether. JuanRiley appears to be here to carry on personal grudges, not build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not say anywhere that N0n3ups's actions excuse my "personal atacks". I am merely listing on my talk page facts. Which no one has to read. Indeed I asked several admin's (I think) that were involved in my block whether this list was a personal attack.Juan Riley (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Your talkpage is for other editors to communicate with you. It is not for compiling lists of anything. See WP:UP. Further, at least regarding the last ANI you were involved in, the edits you characterized as personal attacks were in fact not personal attacks, yet you continue to characterize them as such. I'm not an admin, and do not even play one on TV, but that would be enough for me to block you if I were. Calling an edit by another editor a personal attack, after you have been told by numerous other editors that it is not, is in itself a personal attack. Do everyone, but mostly yourself, a favor and just delete that junk. It has no use in furthering your editing at Misplaced Pages. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see now that was the title of the ANI section you apparently copied? So I struck that. The rest stands. Talk pages are for communications, not compiling evidence or whatever it is you are doing. If that was an attempt at communicating with the editors linked in the intro, it failed. Pings do not work unless you sign your edit and that isn't signed. Best advice is to delete it. If you want to copy it onto your computer, that's your business...but keeping lists like that in a place where they can be easily seen (a talk page qualifies as that) is in violation of both the policy I cited above and the one Dennis cited. Just lose it and we all can go home. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This list is inappropriate and serves as nothing more than to agitate the user accused of the behavior. If the list is not removed, I suggest another block and an administrative removal of the list. -- Dane200707:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@JuanRiley: Regarding the "I asked several admin's" (sic), you mentioned a few of us but didn't send any pings, and I didn't get the message (it's possible I missed it). But now that I know, and as you want my opinion specifically, yes, your userpage accumulation of complaints about another editor is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC (see "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed"). And even if you tried to word the list itself without attacks, your nasty heading is very much an attack. So remove it all, or it will be removed for you. And if you'll take some advice, drop your campaign of complaints against User:N0n3up and move on, as it will not turn out well for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have just seen this edit made after that polemic section was posted, in which JuanRiley says "Also am seeing if I can parlay a week block into an indefinite one". So this has been deliberate provocation all along, and I have obliged with the indefinite block he seems to want. I will now remove the polemic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that an editor's talkpage is his/her castle. As long as JuanRileydoes not continue to ping others, then there's no need for an indef ban. IMHO, we're sometimes too quick to zap away editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Also endorse. I actually indef blocked this account a few days ago on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, but reversed myself when I realised that they'd already been blocked by another admin, albeit temporarily. We all have better things to do with our time than play these sorts of silly games. Lankiveil09:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
I see only one blatent diff of vandalism on November 9th for that article and it looks fine as it currently sits. -- Dane200707:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Edknol: If a case is only with regards to Vandalism and nothing more, then in the future, you should consider taking the matter to WP:AIV per the rules stated there, as ANI is for more difficult situations. (If any experienced editor disagrees, please correct me.)
As for Vandalism on the article. I see a vandalism attack by User:Mattyhain on there of about 8 edits, and one vandalism edit by a 98.253 IP, so not exactly one to take to WP:RFPP yet. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I actually came here to report them, myself, and found this. Looking at their contributions; it's roughly half reverts of the same material; material that was added by multiple contributors. They are going against consensus, and have ignored polite requests to take note of the three-reversion rule. Their editing is disruptive and continuous, and they are accusing all who disagree with them of 'sockpuppetry', which I believe is a breach of good faith.
Diffs: (From most recent, as of this post.)
I believe that is all of them. As is shown in the diffs, they've reverted the same or similar material ten times.
It is suspicious, but it also is edit warring. Everything does not need to be at ANI. This should have been filed at WP:ANEW. It is pretty blatant, so perhaps a passing admin will dole out a block. It is suspicious, but without a clue as to who the master is, a SPI is pointless. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment As of this edit , the article in question has semi-protected status for the period of one week. Further, an Active Arbitration Warning has been applied to the page, stating that the 1RR guideline for post-1932 American Politics s in effect. Hopefully, these things together will solve the issue definitively. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@MRD2014: And none of the reasons were valid. Article deleted, no further action needed at this time; however, the title is on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this editYatesByron comments that "All of the material here can be used in litigation. And, any and all of you can be deposed." The latter sentence appears to be directly if vaguely threatening, and the former is at best in violation of the policy that "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat". Pinkbeast (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
WP policy is against libelous statements, against meatpuppetry, carried out to destroy someone's reputation. --- must we remind everyone?YatesByron (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PinkBeast-You know exactly what you are doing and whining about being held accountable is a tactic to avoid what you are involved with. Removing facts, citations and clearly referenced material e.g. he has 4 degrees, is an inventor, etc. is not defensible.YatesByron (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not entirely germane to ANI, but I have never removed the fact that he has four degrees and indeed commented on your talk page saying that it appears to be well cited and is correctly included in the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked YatesByron for NLT. Any admin may lift the block without reference to me if satisfied that the threat has been withdrawn. Misplaced Pages does not permit legal threats as a way to hold people accountable for their editing here. The rights and wrongs of the dispute are not an issue - we just can't tolerate a legal threat around here, as WP:NLT explains. Bencherlite01:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting for the record that YatesByron had the distinct appearance of an SPA. I don't think there's much question that he/she was not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon(talk)01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's also possible they may have been an SPI. How would they know about WP:MEAT if they were really a new editor? (Note that I was involved in the events leading to this, though I wasn't involved much.) — Gestrid (talk)01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose YatesByron's unblock even if he retracts the legal threat. It appears his only purpose on Misplaced Pages is to push the claim that Shiva Ayyadurai invented email, regardless of what the sources say. He's incapable of collaborating with people who disagree with him, and should not be welcome on Misplaced Pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
They probably could've also been blocked for quite a few reasons on the WP:NOTHERE list. Also, there's now an open SPI about the editor. It was opened by someone else about another editor, then another editor commented on the similarity between them and YatesByron, then I added YatesByron to the list on the report. — Gestrid (talk)01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Burninthruthesky (talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) has kept up a sustained attempt to hound and harass me. Having been an IP address based editor of many many years, I was forced to create an account due to continued trolling at Plasticine by Burninthruthesky and one other editor. Since that event, Burninthruthesky has followed me into my named account and continued to hound me, making frivolous and unfounded allegations at every opportunity.
His latest attempts are a number of baseless SPI complaints, for which he has an extensive history. So much so that Bbb23 specifically warned him against further allegations of this type at his talk page here.
Burninthruthesky has followed me to Ignition system where he is attempting to support another editor in a dispute (which is being discussed on the talk page). Burninthruthesky's editing history shows that he has never made any technical edit to any article on any electrical subject whatsoever (his area of expertise is clearly aeronautics). It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume that he has no expertise whatsoever in electrical matters. Nevertheless, he is now supporting the other editor on a very technical point which he cannot possibly have knowledge of.
Denis Bratland reminded Burninthruthesky that he has to assume good faith here. However, Burninthruthesky responded that he has no intention following it here. The rest of what he wrote is incomrehensible gobbledy-gook.
An IP address editor has stepped in while I have been away (since 24th Oct) and Burninthruthesky has fallen over himself in the attempt to accuse the IP of being me. The second SPI (he has tried unsuccessfully before) is here. Apparantly, two editors stating that he has to assume good faith must be the same editor when it is, in reality, policy. He dismissal of the argument as a 'straw man' when so many references mention the issue (they would not if it was not important) is clear trolling.
When that SPI fails, he raises another. The IP is merely reiterating a point that has been extensively discussed on the talk page. As to what Vodaphone providing mobile access has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Burninthrutheski is also guilty of cherry picking the edits, because a different pair of edits tells a very different story. (It is clear from the talk page that 148.252.128.92 and 148.252.129.151 is the same editor using a dynamic IP address. I do note that the SPI is unactioned after three days, so it is presumably not being taken seriously. Presumably, unless checked, Burninthruthesky is going to keep trying until he succeeds.
There is a specific statement on the SPI pages that unfounded accusations are a form of harassment. As one of the other editors involved in the plasticine trolling and subjected to an unfounded SPI by the unnamed (but very long established) editor, I have been watching this SPI for a while. It seems that Burninthruthesky has picked up a nasty habit from that editor, that of using SPI as an unchallengable harassment technique. After all, how do you challenge an SPI? Surely we're all against socks?
I agree that these three SPI filings over the last few months (1, 2, 3) - as well as the one he created on Andy Dingley in March 2016 (this SPI record was deleted for being completely unfounded and led to a warning being left Bbb23) - all appear to be completely unfounded, and have only wasted the time of our Checkusers and patrolling administrators, which are both short in numbers in that area to begin with. This all appears to be over the same articles (Plasticine and Ignition system) - both of which I've seen or reverted disruption from in the recent past. Burninthruthesky, why are you continuing to do this? You were warned about this back in March, and have continued to create unfounded SPIs three times since. Can you explain yourself, please? ~Oshwah~20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
67.83.176.228 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) had been removing content from the provided article without adequately explaining why such content is "inaccurate/misleading" — , , . They then proceeded to post a comment on my talk page which contained the following: I am Joel Segal's attorney. The content I removed at his request was inaccurate and incomplete and misleading, as well as confidential nonpublic information. The quote attributable to him was unauthorized and not endorsed by him as being published as representative of his stature in the industry. The information was posted by an unauthorized source. An inaccurate and incomplete and misleading wikipedia page is potentially severely damaging to Mr. Segal's business. It is imperative that the changes we made be completed. Thank you.
I'm unsure as to whether or not such message constitutes to a contravention of WP:LEGAL, hence the report here. Nevertheless, would an administrator please review the revisions provided and see whether or not such content is inaccurate or misleading, as per BLP -- I think another pair of eyes on this would be greatly appreciated.
Not a legal threat. Just someone claiming that he's the article subject's attorney (COI for sure) and explaining that he feels that the content is inaccurate and should be removed. Only in death has already done what I felt should be done at this time, which is kindly explain to the user on his talk page about how Misplaced Pages works, and what he needs to do in order to properly discuss the content and exactly what issues exist with it and why. If disruption continues despite the message and the warnings previously left, then we can consider action. But not now. Assume good faith, and if anything... WP:DOLT should apply no matter what. Even if he did make a legal threat, sure we should block per WP:NLT... but we should also investigate the content-related issues that are the driving force behind such legal threats, as a surprising amount of them do actually point out legitimate violations in Misplaced Pages's BLP, verifiability, or other relevant policies. ~Oshwah~17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
There has long been a pattern of OWNish behaviour by IPs and a SPA on that article. I have no doubt that the message left was intended to chill and should fall under NLT. I invite you, Oshwah, to do exactly as you suggest and investigate the content removals. I'm confident that you'll find they have RS behind them. --Tagishsimon(talk)17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has been protected for one week for persistent disruptive editing by Bbb23. While I agree that the repeated removal was disruptive, a legal threat was not made by the IP. We should also make sure to verify that the content being repeatedly removed does, in fact, follow Misplaced Pages's relevant policies. It's the proper and decent thing to do, just in case ;-) ~Oshwah~18:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
NQ - Ah, I didn't start the thread, but good catch nonetheless. Should have caught that myself while I was looking into this. Thanks for adding the notice. :-) ~Oshwah~18:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BeppeLoSqualo (talk·contribs) has been adding mentions of a book called the Knights of Neptune, written by A.J. Morgan to multiple articles. I've blocked them but don't recall how to do a mass revert. The book doesn't seem to exist so this might not be spam (my block reason) but a hoax. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk19:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@SwisterTwister: (involved). Anyway, DanHamilton has decided to use AfD discussion as a place to demonstrate uncivil like behaviors towards the user SwisterTwister, calling him a "her" even though swister's talk user page clearly states his name which is clearly male.(See this) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. It then also goes into detail which in summary is basically calling SwisterTwister stupid. I suggest mentoring for behavior or a civility block. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The first edit by DanHamilton1998 to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmannhere seemed to be fine as far as civility and no personal attacks go, but I do agree that the next edit (here) begins to swerve from a discussion about content and to an unwarranted discussion about SwisterTwister and his experience and character, and with unfounded evidence and reasons to support such statements. The next edit here) contains comments aimed towards SwisterTwister that are absolutely unacceptable.
"Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal."
"Ok,SwisterTwister . now you are outright lying, or not checking the links"
"So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article."
"Her argument is a conspiracy theory"
"So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat?"
As far as the whole "he" vs "she" thing... making that mistake in assumption is common. It happens... shoot, I do it occasionally and by mistake. That's not the end of the world... :-)
However....
DanHamilton1998 - Stating that SwisterTwister is lying, potentially mentally ill, fixated on trying to block this article, and that he's making arguments that are "conspiracy theories" - are unacceptable. These are personal attacks, and are absolutely against Misplaced Pages's civility policy and how we resolve disputes. Please stop. I am leaving you a warning on your talk page regarding this behavior. If personal attacks or other such incivility continues, you may be blocked from editing for this behavior. Please comment on content; do not comment on others like this. Also, what did you mean when you said, "Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal"? What do you mean when you say that this discussion is getting "strange and personal"? ~Oshwah~22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah I added the gender thing into the ANI due to I believe it was not accidental in my opinion, however thats not why we're here. I propose that maybe a attack block is in order? However, maybe holding off until DanHamilton1998 comments? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Zppix - No worries. In that regard, I'll assume good faith and assume that DanHamilton1998 didn't know. I'd rather address the big civility/personal attack issues rather than the small stuff such as this. I'm not calling gender assumption itself "small" (especially if doing so does offend someone personally), but this is an observation we can assume good faith with. Like I said, I accidentally say "he" instead of "she" and occasionally so. It happens... ~Oshwah~22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies about incorrectly guessing the gender of Swistertwister I assumed they were female and that "Swister" was a playful spelling of sister. I also apologize for making the statement that Swistertwister is possibly mentally ill. But I do feel that the argument Swistertwister has made are both inconsistent and incorrect. At this point I feel that it has gone beyond SwisterTwister's opinion because Swistertwister continues to make repeat false statements that Swistertwister has already acknowledged are false due to evidence I have presented. I asked Swistertwister to step aside and let other Wiki editors look at the page because Swistertwister appears to either not be invested enough in editing this article to review the evidence and remember evidence Swistertwister has already acknowledged in the past. I also believe SwisterTwister has a false understanding of how major news outlets function. Swistertwister appears to believe from the statements made that Bill Hillmann has written the articles about himself in all of these 22 outlets outlets cited. I think we can all agree that is false and an curious thing for Swistertwister to think. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally have also looked at the page WITHOUT the bias of this ANI (when it was first nom'd) and I honestly don't disagree with any of the AfD votes, however, this is ANI not a place to ask for an article review. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This editor has been adding poorly sourced content to support what appears to be a bias against the person in this biography. For example, this edit was barely supported by the source cited. When the edit was removed, the editor reverted with the edit summary "Show references to the effect instead of deleting the existing ones." This is not how Misplaced Pages:Verifiability works. The editor later added references here from a personal blog to support their point.
On the article's talk page this editor made this statement where they lament "Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -an now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time." This editor also left a message on my talk page here warning me to "Please keep your Republican tags and opinion." This editor's sentiment is also articulated with this edit, where they state "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you."
A caution about the article's discretionary sanctions was left on this editor's talk page here, though after that caution this editor called another editor an "idiot" here.
At Talk:Myron Ebell, BatteryIncluded has intimidated other editors with these statements about them:
- "dumbass".
- "obnoxious and unethical".
- "cut the bullshit".
- "cut the bullshit".
- "You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold".
Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Reading through the diffs above as well as the talk page itself, he was clearly warned about being WP:CIVIL to which he followed up with more incivility. Not to mention, he's been blocked in the past for being uncivil. Jauerback/dude.22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimbo's account might be compromised
All has been handled. Jimbo's password has been reset by staff, and things have been quiet now. Nothing else needs doing. -- The Voidwalker01:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) (nac)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks. Was I the only account blocked in this incident? If so, I'd like to know why. Also, the article discussed right above this (Myron Ebell) was the very last article I edited. I mean, weird things happen but there is literally a 1⁄5,283,334 chance of that happening by coincidence. This is bizarre. --bender235 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
He can unblock himself, no? Pretty sure removal of permissions was standard in these situations, though I might have missed it if it's been done already. Arkon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This has escalated to a global lock (across all projects), so a steward will need to unblock. I believe JW is a steward himself, but presumably he will want to discuss the situation first with someone else to ensure that any security issue is corrected. (That's what I was asked to do when my WP e-mail account started sending out spam a few years ago after I'd inadvertently downloaded a virus, back when I was a checkuser and an oversighter.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone that intentionally logging into someone else's account, particularly one with advanced permissions that you do not yourself hold, is a violation of the terms of use and potentially a serious federal crime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimbo here, writing from my alternative account. Thanks for handling this. What's my new password? EEng02:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for contacting Misplaced Pages's replacement password service. I'm sorry, sir, but there is a small service fee for replacement passwords. Now if you can just email me your credit card number, its expiry date and the three digit security number on the back of the card, your new password will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. As this is a complicated process, please don't be alarmed if it takes a few weeks for delivery... --Shirt58 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've taken a very quick and cursory look at the linked diffs and also at Tweed's broader editing history and I'm not sure this is so much a case of NOTHERE as a rather spectacular WP:CIR and WP:NPOV fail. Tweed has a little over 80 edits and a few appear to actually be constructive or at least well intentioned. I'm not even sure I would call all of the linked diffs as clearly bad faith editing. But I am seeing two things that are a serious problem. First is an obvious POV in their editing history. They are playing advocate for one side in the recent political election. The second is a clear failure to grasp the way we operate here. Basic guidelines like NPOV and RS seem to be lost on Tweed. That coupled with their obsession with hot button political topics spells trouble. Conceding that I may be pushing the boundaries here on AGF, Im going to suggest that a TBAN from editing on any political subject broadly construed for at least six months, but maybe a year, might solve the problem. I think we will quickly find out if this is someone who is interested in learning how to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia or they are just here to advocate. If their pattern of editing does not improve in six-twelve months then it's probably best if Tweed found another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Mostly done already, though if you mean to suggest that all politics (and not just post-1932 American politics) for six months, that's an option. I went with indefinite because I don't think certain users (on all sides) are going to get any better within the next four (possibly eight) years. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd probably go with any politics post 1932. But I don't think an indefinite topic ban is needed. If Tweed is simply suffering from the ordinary ignorance that all new editors have to varying degrees then 12 months will fix that. Conversely if there is a problem that goes beyond a lack of understanding the way the project works then I am fairly confident that will become evident quickly as well. In the first case; problem solved and happy editing. In the second; we may need to gently suggest that he is not a good fit for our community and should look for some other undertaking to volunteer his time and efforts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
He can appeal later on, indefinite isn't "irrevocably infinite." The reason I hesitate to set exact dates on topic bans is because some editors will just go "ok, so I have to not use this account for X units of time." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I'd suggest dropping a note on his talk page letting him know that he can ask to have the TBAN lifted after a reasonable period. And emphasizing that this is not punitive but rather because we are concerned that he doesn't have enough knowledge about how the project works to constructively contribute to some hot button topics at this point in time. That said, I would not lift the TBAN in less than six months and I would need to see evidence of constructive editing elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not a case of incompetence else I might agree. This is plain alt-right POV pushing and trolling, with no sincere effort or desire to actually improve these articles. I refer you to the editors contributions: a few random gnomish edits and large proportion BLP violating innuendo disguised as content proposals. I still think he should be blocked, but hey, let's give him a chance.- MrX02:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You may well be right. We will see. If Tweed is a far right troll my guess is he will either abandon the project after being TBANNED or he will ignore the BAN at which point hitting the indef button will only take a couple of seconds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From above, over the period of around five months (June-present month), this user has been making the same edit using almost the same reasoning (WP:OSE) and never posting on the talk page for discussion. The user has been blocked previously in June for edit warring on another page. Given that, it is expected that this editor is experienced enough to know about discussing on the talk and edit warring by now. The issue concerned has been discussed by others previously and these edits were reverted by different editors. I personally reverted it twice. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Unserefahne has been repeatedly warned about non-wiki editing, yet continues their WP:IDNHT behaviour and refuses to communicate at all. A few examples:
Changing Confucianism to Ruism, mostly in categories, e.g. and . Here is a look at the contributions to categoryspace.
Renaming stuff based on their own way of translation, e.g. , instead of sourced translations.
This morning the user did another cut-n-paste page move, in spite of warnings from two admins not to do that any more. Coupled with the lack of any effort to communicate with us or respond to our concerns. I have blocked for one week to start and if the problems continue after the block has expired I expect a longer or indefinite block will occur. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that the deleted article Nguyễn Thụy Đan was a vanity job. If the picture on that page was to be believed, Unserefahne is a teen-aged guy, or at least young enough that I thought "Don't Bite the Newbies." But I agree that the limits have been reached and exceeded. ch (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Repeated deletion of a page by admins even after explaining I was not done creating it. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Jimfbleak deleted it twice due to a clear conflict of interest as he is a birder and the geoup kusts an operation involving a bird sanctuary that made national headlines and that went against birder interests. Now content is not visible. Please restore the page "United States Civilian Forces" so I can complete it. The guys who tagged and deleted it were very rude and aggressive and threatened me. Usernine (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)usernine
It's called a sandbox, use it, then if it's good enough, create the article. Also, a piece of advice, learn the proper steps to creating an article before you create one. It helps avoid stupid situations like this. Ugh. CrashUnderride17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggested that Usernine reported me here due to accusations of bad faith editing and abuse of my admin rights, discussion here. I've also pinged Cahk as my alleged co-conspirator, accusations here. The topic is clearly non-notable and lacking anything approaching proper references or any evidence that it is more than a one-man social media campaign, but since the editor concerned is convinced that the world is against him, rather than there being any failure on his part to follow our rules, I thought it best to air his grievances here. Jimfbleak - talk to me?18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Did we rename this page "kick the newbies around"? I must have missed that. Would a grown-up admin be so kind as to restore the content and move it into the draft space so that we can all see what this is about. thanks. --Tagishsimon(talk)18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do you assume it's kicking a newbie around? Isn't there a real, more than likely, possibility that the newbie is actually trying to advertise something that's not notable? CrashUnderride18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, AGF, it's a newbie, and you're quite clearly kicking him/her around. The newbie may well be misguided. We expect better from editors than the tone of your posts in this thread - they speak for themselves as being repugnant. --Tagishsimon(talk)18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"Repugnant"? How? I told them to created the article in their sandbox and gave them advice as to reading the guidelines for creating articles. As for the second comment, it was a reference that I made on Jim's talk page that so many newibes assume they're right and everyone's out to get them. CrashUnderride18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Tagishsimon - You're an experienced editor. So am I. I don't see a newbie being kicked around. I see a newbie kicking. I see a newbie whose rants can be ignored, and should be ignored. I also see that the page has been temporarily restored. I also note that the use of the word "repugnant" has aspects of a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Page temporarily restored at Draft:United States Civilian Forces, so people can see the matter under discussion. My 2c would be that the organisation is clearly non-notable, but that this is a good-faith attempt at creating an article rather than attempted spamming. ‑ Iridescent18:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
On the article rather than behaviour, but does not appear to be a a copyvio; does- according to e.g. this- be completely non-notable, backed purely by blogs, FB, Pinterest, etc. Immediate A7 if this ever reaches artispace. Muffled19:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have anything new to add - my comments on the user's talk page, as well as mine, demonstrates no ill will on my part. Both Jim and I went extensive length in attempting to resolve the matter. Having said that, I don't accept personal attacks. The newbie is just misguided on how he/she perceives Misplaced Pages to be. Just because everyone thinks their organization (or "movement", as the newbie calls it) "needs" a page, it does not mean so. If everyone CSD I tagged counts as a "bite", well, then I am happy to hang up my skates because new page patrollers are clearly not appreciated for weeding out problematic articles so other editors can actually review notable articles. --Cahk (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Polyenetian, IPs and suspected copyvio
I recently removed some nationalist rants and threatening remarks by Polyenetian (talk·contribs) on their own talkpage and warned them, see the page history. A user, Rrburke, has suggested that Polyenetian might as of today be using the 59.189.114.222 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) IP to avoid scrutiny. It looks likely enough, but I'm not sure; the topics — Cantonese people, Guangzhou, etc — are pretty much Greek to me. Could somebody more at home with them take a look, please? I also noticed another IP in the same /22 range, 59.189.112.120 (talk·contribs·WHOIS), has edited the same articles, but that may be nothing. And another thing: the edits by both Polyenetian and the IPs are in suspiciously sophisticated English — not the way Polynetian writes on their own page at all. I think it may all be copyvio. But I found such a confusion of hits on Google that I'm having trouble telling who is copying who. I don't have much confidence in my skills at identifying Misplaced Pages mirrors. Pinging @RexxS:. Bishonen | talk17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
I'm not seeing a problem of copyvio with Polyenetian's edits. For example, looking at the last few article edits I find idiomatic expressions like "harbour anti-Semitic feelings", but searching for part of the sentence containing it reveals that most of the time the words are found associated with the US spelling 'harbor', so it's unlikely to be a copy-paste. I also find typos, like 'cemetey' and 'destrction', and unidiomatic expressions like "The Thirty Years' War brought tremendous destrction to the Germany". None of those show up in any convincing way in Google searches for the sentence fragments containing them. Whatever the source, Polyenetian is composing the text him/herself. I suspect that Polyenetian may not have English as their first language, but is sufficiently able to be able to paraphrase sources while retaining phrases that give the appearance of more sophisticated English that they employ when relating their own thoughts. I haven't examined more than few edits, so please take this as a tentative opinion. Does anybody else think that it's reasonable explanation of 'Shonen's concerns? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This information may be related. I left the information a few days ago but haven't followed up on whether the information was useful or not, or related to the user Judtojud.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC))
A few days ago I also noticed an IP removing redlinks from dab pages with the argument, "if it hasn't got an article, it doesn't need one." Don't have the diff, but it could be this editor. White Arabian Filly21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I came across this article on my patrol, and noticed a new editor Special:Contributions/Rencoyote who has edited solely on this article. Looking at the diffs between edits, there seems to be a concerted effort to remove some of the negative sounding information as "one-sided", "allegations", "unnecessary", "paragraph is not relevant", "Wiretapping played a minor role in the 2006 campaign", etc. I scanned through the talk page of the article, and noted there had been attempts in the past (albeit a LONG time ago) in removing similar materials in questions. Given I am not familiar with the subject matter, could another editor look into this?--Cahk (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
That certainly looks tendentious. I'll try to look some more tomorrow; for now, I've given the user discretionary alerts for American politics and biographies of living people. Bishonen | talk00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
Moved to User talk:Softlavender#Dispute resolution (permalink) – discussion about what is and what is not DR was moved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed to each other. I see no sleepers in that range for the last 90 days. Katie 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
General Ization 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)