Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) at 04:15, 21 April 2017 (→Personal attacks by Nishidani at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Zukas block evasion

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, the guy has been ramping back up into the same old behavior since December 2016, with a couple of disruptive edits in the last few days. Here are the recent IPs he has used:

• 205.154.246.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2016 – April 2017
• 205.154.244.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) June, December 2016, January–April 2017
• 205.154.244.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January–February 2017
• 169.229.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) September 2014, January–February 2017
• 205.154.244.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2016 – March 2017
• 169.229.6.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2015, February 2017
• 130.65.109.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2016, February 2017
• 169.229.202.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014, January–March 2015, February 2017
• 169.229.202.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) February–March 2015, February 2017
• 75.16.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014 – February 2015
• 128.32.104.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) July–October 2014, January–February 2017
• 70.90.163.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2013 – February 2015, December 2016 – March 2017

Perhaps we can block these IPs individually for a good long time, rather than attempting a rangeblock, as there are neighboring IPs which are heavily used by library patrons. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

These are all definitely addresses used by LTA Tim Zukas as they all geolocate to Cal State University (Office of the Chancellor), University of California - Berkeley (Office of the President), the Berkeley Public Library, and a Comcast Commercial account in Walnut Creek, CA. These IPs all belong to registered owners that he used in his many earlier spates of disruptive editing and block evasion, and mirror the same pattern of mass unexplained deletions of content made to transportation related articles (aviation, airports, railroads, etc) is exactly the same disruptive behavior Zukas was permanently blocked for on January 25, 2016. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Need some admin attention here

This thread seems to have been lost in the shuffle. It concerns an LTA -- could an admin look at it and figure out a course of action? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the IP addresses are stale. I guess we could block them long-term, but they seem only sporadically reused. It might be best to report them to AIV individually. I'll block two that aren't too stale: 205.154.246.130 and 205.154.244.240/30. The /30 doesn't have any collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This LTA has a pattern of going back to "stale" IP's depending on where he is. The IP's he has used in the past two weeks are at Cal State (probably East Bay campus), all of the others (excepting one commercial Comcast account in Walnut Creek, CA and one at the Berkeley Public Library) are registered to the Office of the President at Univ. of California -- Berkeley of which Zukas is likely a graduate (c 1970). Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: POV Forks

Related Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#POV_forks_being_created_as_school_project

Hi...I am the instructor for the class at Berkeley. Thanks for this conversation. We are very glad that WikiEdu provides the additional support needed to make university students great contributors to Misplaced Pages. It resources the students to be able to bring their considerable research skills to bear on creating great, neutral content.

The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record as having said a number of pretty inflammatory things about race and the environment and also having done some. These strike the eye and appear incredible to some members of the Misplaced Pages community. In one case, a Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally.

It has been suggested that the students are committing the error of going into too much depth in their articles. Environmental problems don't occur in isolation from human systems and are in fact caused by social and economic factors. I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it

Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.

And thanks again to WikiEdu and Ian in particular for creating a vehicle for rigorously trained students to improve Misplaced Pages and create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice, despite their novice-level skills at negotiating this particular technology. --EJustice (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced what EJustice was trying to post without the breaking of the page. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Upon reading the above post, I am trying... very hard to continue to assume good faith, but there appears to be a serious disconnect between what this educator wishes to achieve and the goals of Misplaced Pages. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I can set EJustice on a better path than they are right now. Messing up ANI is not a good first step when assuming Misplaced Pages competency. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to save help you! Anmccaff (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At this point I feel obliged to point out that Misplaced Pages is not a WP:SOAPBOX. From the above, I do get the distinct impression that this bit of knowledge hasn't yet arrived in Berkeley. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This class is also being discussed at WP:ENI, where the issue of a possible shared account, violating WP:NOSHARING, has arisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: You said, "A Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally."

You have yet to acknowledge that your students misquoted an attributed source.

The editor wrote, "He once called climate change a Chinese 'hoax'". But the original source said "concept" -- not "hoax".

Per MOS:PMC, "quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." More generally, all student writers should be taught this principle. See Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: "It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of meticulous accuracy in quoting from the works of others. Authors should check every direct quotation against the original."

An unrelated point: I think that if your students are seeking to advance social justice through their contributions here, they must by definition act "on behalf of ... communities who are ... excluded from meaningful participation" in Misplaced Pages. See Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. "social justice". I suspect that this would include, in particular, lower socioeconomic-class communities, whose members lack the leisure time or education needed to take part here. You may accordingly want to have your students search for and publish more information about what the administration's environmental policy means for working-class communities generally, not just for particular subsets of those communities. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is so awkward. User:EJustice you and your class are attempting to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of WP:NOT - which defines the mission of Misplaced Pages and says what WP is, and what it is not) as well as violating WP:NPOV. Your class is adding loads of very bad-by-WP-standards in a topic that is so controversial that it has been to our "Supreme Court" (WP:ARBCOM) on multiple occasions and has what we call discretionary sanctions" on it, namely contemporary US politics. We generally warn people not to make their first edits on topics that are so hard to work in. You have led a whole class of new editors into it, in a very foot-stomping way.

The problems go far beyond "going into too much depth in their articles" (part of what we call WP:UNDUE). Almost all the content is pure advocacy with explicit POV language and sourcing. The same content and ideas have been added to many articles and new articles, with no effort to integrate or deal with WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL content with negative projections about the future. There have been WP:BLP violations.

Your post is not promising in that you show no openness to understanding the problems here, as does this AfD !vote, this partial (?) removal of a PROD, this response to someone trying to point out relevant policies and guidelines... oy.

Please be aware that we do indefinitely block editors (and students and their instructors are editors like everybody else) who refuse to listen when people try to explain community norms (the policies and guidelines by which the editing community governs itself) and press on. The discretionary sanctions allow that blocking to happen swiftly when the problems are clear and there is no sign of them abating but only continuing. That would be ... awkward and I for one hope you can start hearing what people are saying to you in the several places across Misplaced Pages where people are responding to the class and to specific articles. I understand that your WP liaison is trying very hard to communicate with you, your TAs, and your students (diff) off-WP. I hope that bears fruit and this does not turn into more of a train wreck than it already is. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (added missing word Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for your input. I disagree with your characterization of our students' work (soapbox, not, npov, undue, crystalball). I've read those policies and don't find that the pages in question generically violate them. Could you perhaps show statements that do so? It would help us understand what you're speaking of. Your references to the few edits I've directly engaged in highlight the same problem. Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations. No need to do this yourself, but if you could find a soapbox-y statement that would be great. There's a lot of contentious stuff going on right now in the US and it does feel like a lot of soapboxing is going on. But that doesn't mean that, for example, mountain-top removal coal mining isn't actually affecting poor people in Appalachia. How is it a violation to document that?

Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, a response with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:ARBCOM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc. is a not uncommon intimidation tactic. The work of your students is far better on the whole than typical newby editors. Their work certainly should not evoke this knee-jerk response. I hope some admins with cooler heads step in and help resolve this.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I highlighted a few examples in my AfD comments, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this discussion. For example there is WP:CRYSTAL about Trump in Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States, I reviewed several of the the articles and I don't think the policies are being cited maliciously in this case Seraphim System 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your AfD comments cited this as POV, not CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that at this point this entry is CRYSTALBALL "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks."

Note however that my talk page feedback to this page a few weeks ago specifically suggested to them how to remedy this. Very easy to show how proposed cuts in Trump's budget will impact park accessibility as the subject of accessibility is a widely researched one. We know, from rigorous peer-reviewed research, how fees affect park attendance by various groups. The editors of that page need to bring those citations to bear or modify the page. I do not think this warrants the TNT you suggest.

Overall grateful for a good example so editors can remedy. Most of the AfD comments have been unsupported by actual analysis and, again, does the need for better citation warrant an AfD? Wiki's systemic biases do make it harder for certain groups' issues to be addressed and I'd urge those reacting so strongly to think about that.

--EJustice (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

note, fixed indenting Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH carefully. If the secondary source does not explicitly say "Trump's budget cuts have effected park accessibility..." etc. I don't think it will pass scrutiny from our editors. As for better citation, Indigenous rights to land along rivers cites to Misplaced Pages itself. The errors are such flagrant policy violations that I don't think there is much to debate at this stage in terms of application and systemic bias. They demonstrate a clear and persistent misunderstanding of the most basic Misplaced Pages policies. I think it your responsibility to better familiarize yourself and your students with Misplaced Pages's policies and their applications, before accusing us of making unsupported accusations. Seraphim System 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with I am One of Many's comment. There is no need to threaten the instructor and the students with blocks. What an embarrassment to the Project. What happened to WP:AGF and WP:BITE? That said, I agree with Seraphim System that students are writing things that do not follow our rules, especially rules against original research, synthesis and citing to primary sources, all of which would be acceptable in academic writing. The solution is not to WP:BITE the newcomers but to teach them respectfully how to follow our rules and write good content using proper sourcing that will stick. Deleting all their new articles rather than improve them is incredibly insulting. Just imagine if you were in a class and your instructor did that with all of your work.

I have offered to help the instructor and the outreach has already begun. Why are the rest of the dedicated Wikipedians not doing more of the same? Why are we instead slinging mud, as the instructor correctly pointed out here? I think the students and instructor are learning quite a lot from this experience, especially about Misplaced Pages itself, and about how we treat new editors who come in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia and provide well sourced content, and in particular how we treat the work of students from one of the U.S.'s top universities. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Without involvement, i observe there are new editors confronted with a wall of violations by Jytdog. Above I AM One of Many summed it up, intimidation tactic. Jytdog might as well be not even aware how he comes across to new editors. Misplaced Pages lacks new editors because of such harsh responses. Yet, editors with a history of conflicts are allowed to getting involved, over and over again. prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is why my suggestion would be to stay out of ArbCom subject areas (like Trump) as much as possible, at least until you are comfortable with the basics of WP:OR, because ArbCom is where editors will encounter truly esoteric applications of policy. It doesn't seem fair to allow pages to POV-fork out of ArbCom just because they are part of a school project. Seraphim System 15:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I don't regard our placing the entire area of American politics under discretionary sanctions, as a particular strange thing to do, especially in time. And we arbitrators do not make the decisions about enforcement for individual violations of discretionary sanctions--this is done by other administrators. The process is deliberately divided. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. Two of our five core policies are "Misplaced Pages the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" and be bold. Eliminating political and controversial topics from student involvement would violate our core polices. The problem comes from our end of not following our own policies as I mentioned at here at WP:EN/I and not giving these students the core policy of respect they are entitled. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you're proficient enough in English, competent to understand our rules, and do not violate our policies. Then, there may come a time when the community will decide that you can't edit, regardless of "anyone can edit." And while WP:Boldness is encouraged, bold edits are just edits, there's nothing sacrosanct about them, they can be reverted and the discussed just like every other edits. Neither "Anyone can edit" or "Be bold" are "Get Out of Jail Free" cards, they do not protect editors who do not follow policies from criticism or, potentially, sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update, over at ENI the Education folks have said that they had a video conference with EJustice and that they have moved some articles back into sandboxes, will allow AfDs to continue, noted that some articles are probably OK and will continue to be improved, and clarified that students are not going to be graded on final product but on their drafts. And User:Train2104 is keeping track of the articles at a userpage, here.Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think the solution of userfying was a good one that I advocated for at the WP:AfDs and I thank Ryan (Wiki Ed) for the hard work done. However, we must own up to our failings both to the instructor and to the students from not following our core policies WP:5P3, WP:5P4, WP:5P5. We need to reflect on our behavior and our failure to be more welcoming to these students and the instructor and to the student's hard work.--David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have mixed views on this issue. I've been involved with two articles from this class Draft:Environmental impacts of the War on Drugs and Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. The former I had to move back to draftspace during NPP because it was a very biased essay and full of loaded words (Draconian cannot possibly be used in a current politics article without being a loaded word.) I've reached out to the students to try to help. The Trump article posed an entirely different issue because it was also very essay like, but it also contained 6 sentences of close paraphrase/copy and paste, that required 128 revisions to be deleted. That being said, I firmly believe many of these articles have a place in Misplaced Pages. The student just need to follow NPOV better, and we could react better by not sending them to AfD, but by draftifying and helping them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Professor. I apologize for the wall of accusations that you have been met with here. You were operating in good faith. You and your students just need to be educated on the difference between a Misplaced Pages article and a term paper. A Misplaced Pages article does not express opinions, does not reach a conclusion, does not have an introduction explaining what the writer is going to say - none of that. A Misplaced Pages article only reflects what is has been given significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No WP:synthesis, no WP:Original research, nothing from the writer at all. And of course no opinions. Having said that, let me say that my first reaction on looking at the article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration was that as a Misplaced Pages article it was terrible. But then I looked again and realized that it was well researched, very well written, and provided a good framework on which to build a Misplaced Pages article. In fact, it was by far the best student-written submission I have ever seen here. It just needed work. So several of us, particular TonyBallioni and myself, have done a major rewrite on that article to remove the copyright violations (direct copying is an absolute no-no and your students should know that), and to eliminate the "student essay" character of it and convert it to a neutral encyclopedia article. Your students might want to compare the current article with the version before we started in on it; it would be instructive for them. Thanks for reaching out to the community here, and I hope future efforts from you and your class will be welcomed as fully encyclopedic material. If you want to discuss my comments further, you can talk to me at User talk: MelanieN. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again...the entire revision history has been deleted. The record seems to indicate 2 potential copyright violations in what was quite a long article. Hard for students to review their work under such circumstances. I've asked the editor involved to revert. If you can join that call, we'd all have a better record to learn from. --EJustice (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice: Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. The reason that (almost) the entire history got deleted is that the copyright violation was not discovered until a lot of time had passed and a lot of intermediate edits had been made. Misplaced Pages is very sensitive on this subject for legal reasons. They will not allow copyright violations to remain here, even in the revision history. That means that every version of the page that contained the copyright violation - every page between the addition of the copyright violation material and its removal - unfortunately had to be revision-deleted. I understand this causes problems for students or anyone else trying to figure out who said what; it makes the history almost worthless. But it won't do any good to ask for the rev-del to be reverted. It was applied per Wikimedia Foundation policy, which trumps anything we editors may wish to do. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. I'll make sure the student editors take a look. We are finding that material related to women, indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material both at the full-article level as well as sub-sections. And the students are, by now, well-trained in sourcing strong material for points about these communities. So deletions rather than suggestions for additional sourcing seems unreasonable. As you run across insufficiently documented statements, please point them out since there's so much good stuff for people to bring to bear on issues that affect low-income communities and communities of color and are under-documented on Misplaced Pages. Thanks again! --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the women's studies articles you are talking about? One of the areas I edit in is women's history. Seraphim System 12:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There was an article on Organophosphates and Women's Health (the chemical is a teratogen, meaning one of its major modes of toxicity is to affect embryonic and fetal development in utero). Deleted for reasons of POV as I recall, namely that women seemed a peculiar issue to focus on to a reviewer. The women exposed to high levels of such chemicals tend to be farmworkers and non-white as well. EJustice (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: You wrote, "Material related to women, ... people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material"; and, "There more editorial complaints about the race and class issues than other issues". In the current article I find 3 passages on people of color -- but 0 on women and 0 on low-income people. This makes it look like you may be taking a needless risk of getting caught (1) making untruthful statements about our editorial conduct or (2) making statements that reflect your own systemic biases more than ours. I advise that you take prompt corrective action before Misplaced Pages does. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 10:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think one reason your comments here met with such a negative reaction was because of your expressed desire to create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice. That came across as wanting to push a particular viewpoint - in this case, that Trump's policies are bad, but we would have reacted just as negatively if you were here to push the viewpoint that Trump's policies are good. Please read this essay; the message is that Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle to "right great wrongs". We state what we find in neutral reliable sources - and we don't cherry-pick to make a point. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment. Every piece of content in the world, including the content on Misplaced Pages, is a resource for somebody and not a resource for everybody. The more clear you are about who your audience is, the better the content, even if it's neutral. And providing vital resources is quite different from righting a great wrong. Misplaced Pages is a vehicle for educational content, and it's gotta be alright for some of that neutral educational content to be of use to people affected by pollution and injustice. Does anyone here think that it's legitimate to have material on Misplaced Pages that serves such folks? --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: To clarify the Righting Great Wrongs essay: It's OK for the class to help right a wrong if they do so by reporting information published in RS while upholding WP:NPOV. They could try searching diligently for reputable sources that say (1) what his policies are, (2) the ways in which they're bad or good, (3) the degree to which people "affected by pollution and injustice" are more concerned about pollution or about jobs, and (4) what the trade-offs are authoritatively expected to be. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

break

EJustice: I would suggest showing your class the difference between some articles as they were initially written by your students, and those same articles after they were revised. For example, for Agua Prieta pipeline, compare the "before" version (replete with many problems), to the current version (after being edited by me and other editors to conform to our policies). I share in the comments made by others above (such as MelanieN) and add the following additional recommendations, which strongly encourage you to review:

(1) you should instruct your students not to revert articles to their preferred version when Wikipedians raise objections. On at least three separate occasions that I saw, two different students simply reverted without discussion when efforts were made to bring their articles in line with Misplaced Pages practices: here (where one student inexplicably reverted a page move, even though another Wikipedian had explained why the initial page title was improper) and here and here (when another one of your students simply reverted, when in fact some of the manifest problems with the article had been pointed out — including fairly obvious stuff like citing Misplaced Pages as a reference in a Misplaced Pages article. Take a moment to read, and share with your students, Misplaced Pages's policies on dispute resolution and consensus.

(2) You should expressly and clearly tell their students that they have a responsibility to explain edits, to become familiar with basic Misplaced Pages policies, and to never simply revert or edit-war when they encounter problems.

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles, where more references and content are often sorely needed, and where experienced Wikipedians are more likely to monitor the page. For example, rather than adding an term-paper-style essay in Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America (as one of your students did), try adding content to air pollution in the United States or Health equity#Ethnic_and racial disparities, or both.

(4) You should tell your students that it is important in a Misplaced Pages article to actually explain the topic, starting with a basic core of facts that puts the event in context. For example, in the Agua Prieta pipeline, the article as initially written by the student talked about events 400 years in the past, but failed entirely to give basic expository facts, like the name of the company that owns the pipeline. Additionally, and perhaps more seriously, the article as written by the student cherry-picked basic facts: for example, it wrongly portrayed an indigenous tribe as monolithically opposed to the pipeline, when in fact the reliable sources show that the tribe is internally split on the subject.

(5) You should teach your students about the differences in source quality. For example, advocacy groups and their publications are often not reliable sources for statements of fact. Your students, when possible, should try to cite to respected academic/scholarly sources or high-quality journalistic sources. Many of your students, to their great credit, have done so — but several others have not. Neutrality 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. WikiEdu provides great guidance to classes up front. I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. I've cross-referenced your points to the trainings they provided and not found them wanting, but if you could take a look and make additional suggestions I'll try to incorporate them as well as pass them on to WikiEdu. Here's the detailed syllabus and list of trainings as well as links to the training materials. And I am SUPER proud of them for not having responded less respectfully to the disrespect they've received here. Their constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. They are as upper-division students fairly well trained researchers and certainly good at finding good supporting and citable materials. Your assistance in how to turn their considerable skill and expertise into great Misplaced Pages material is most appreciated. --EJustice (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. Then perhaps the training was too sketchy, or covered so much material that some of it wasn't absorbed. Because the cited examples (like reverting, or edit warring, or not explaining their edits) are things that your students actually did, despite their training and despite their syllabus. I would have preferred to see your response be "ok, thanks for pointing these issues out, I will call them to the students' attention so that they will not make this kind of mistake in the future." Rather than saying "We already told them that" and ignoring the fact that telling them wasn't effective. Look, we really do want your participation here, now and in the future. And we would like your next venture into Misplaced Pages to be a more pleasant and less confrontational experience for you and your students. But that depends on you learning what is important to Misplaced Pages, and transmitting it to your students. If you can't accept the strict neutrality required for Misplaced Pages, and the input and corrections and even rewriting that ALL Wikipedians are subject to, then maybe having them write a journal article or something would work out better for you. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I take your point...so let me make it explicitly. I have thanked everybody I've responded to for their help. Which means we appreciate the help and are taking the legitimate advice seriously. The students spend about an hour a week in active, instructor-led review of their weekly work, in addition to the substantive course material. As of a couple of days ago, WikiEdu worked out explicit measures to de-escalate the conversations that have gotten a bit "hot" and to further improve quality. So editorial feedback is being taken seriously and reverting has specifically been flagged as unproductive. Out of 180 students, we've detected no more than 3 incidents of reverting. Not sure about how many have unexplained edits, and David Tornheim made the great suggestion that we quiz to some of these issues. But, let's say we ran a quiz in the form of what actually happened...3 Fs out of 180. Pat those kids on the back, no? So thanks to all for pointing issues out. Myself, the TAs, and the great folks at WikiEdu are training, coaching and monitoring the work being done using Misplaced Pages's standards and the feedback we're getting.

Some editors have also joined me in raising concerns about systemic bias which may be responsible for there being more editorial complaints about the race and class issues than other issues, as well as how the hostility appears to violate some of the community's principles of open-ness, assuming good intentions, and boldness in writing (WP:ANI and WP:BITE). I know we are learning a lot on our end about such issues, in addition to how to contribute meaningfully to Misplaced Pages itself. Thanks again for all the input and help! --EJustice (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. When I say all Wikipedians are subject to being reverted and corrected, I mean it. You and your students are not being singled out. Take me: I have been here 10 years and am an administrator, but I am not immune. Just yesterday an edit of mine was reverted by another editor. So I went to the article talk page and we will work it out. That's how it works here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be wise if all of us who have concerns about the work of students, spend some time looking over the material provided by Wiki Ed here. I had asked about this a while back and got no response. It would be helpful for Wiki Ed to make sure experienced editors know what the students are being taught. Based on what I see there, I compare that to Neutrality's comment:

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea choice in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles,

This is not consistent with how the training modules by WikiEd are set up. The courses specifically encourage student to make new articles on a subject not covered by Misplaced Pages, which is exactly what those students did. The fact that some editors think these are POV forks does not mean that the students or the instructor would come to the same conclusion. I have disagreed with others about whether these articles were truly content forks and "already covered". In the training module for the instructor here it says:

Misplaced Pages writing assignment

In a Misplaced Pages writing assignment, students find topics that aren't covered well on Misplaced Pages. They research that topic with quality sources, and build up a well-referenced encyclopedia article.

This is exactly what the students did, which I believe is one of the reasons the instructor said s/he was following the program.

Also look at the next page and how similar it is to the subjects chosen. This leads me to my comment below about the instructor's comments about the cause of the problem here being related to the subject matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I read this guide and I think it would have been clearer with examples. Yes, it tells students to choose a topic that is not overly broad, though not too narrow, and the checklist at the end asks "Is the title short and simple? Make sure it doesn't look like an essay" - I think some clear Right/Wrong examples would go a long way. The very brief note on WP:OR might benefit from some examples/emphasis also. Bold font and CORRECT and NOT CORRECT is how I got through most of my assignments in college. Seraphim System 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Yes, I had read that PDF guide too when I first saw some courses, but I do not believe that pamphlet is the main document they learn by. The link I provided has much more information and is more user friendly and interactive than the 16 page PDF. It also includes the instructions for how the instructor should design the courses. Familiarity with those documents should reduce some of the confusion about expectations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE. The comment immediately above - accusing editors of being "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - is a good example of this. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm active in I/P Collaboration and I don't consider myself "to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - I think blanket, unsupported statements like this narrowly escape being WP:PA by not being directed at any one editor. Seraphim System 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Are the marking criteria for this assignment publicly available? I see that one of them is the extent to which Environmental Justice is covered in the article. This creates a whole lot of WP:POV and WP:COATRACK problems, when every topic is seen in the light of Environmental justice. Perhaps instructors should be asked to submit marking criteria to Wiki Ed for feedback or approval. StAnselm (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see immediately that there will be an inherent clash between the way the encyclopaedia works and they way academia does. Clash 1; I would expect a university/college student (in a social sciences/humanities course) to learn to research a question/topic, to synthesize material on the question in order to draw (hopefully) well-reasoned conclusions about the question or topic. The reason for this is to help students develop their critical thinking and analysis faculties. This encyclopaedia works similarly in terms of research and writing, but, synthesizing and drawing conclusions is something Misplaced Pages has no wiggle room for. No original research. We are but mindless drones reporting only that which is explicitly stated in the sources we use. Compare college; Source A says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined over the course of the 19th century; Source B says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" spent the 19th century embroiled in constant war and famine. At college you might take these together to conclude that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined because of "constant war and famine". On Misplaced Pages, you would not do this (even so far as to say "might") without a third source (source C) explicitly confirming this. Note that I am presenting as simple a case as I can for what I am saying. Clash 2; POV. Students are, again hopefully, encouraged to develop their own perspectives and ideas on issues and not just to mindlessly repeat what their college professors are teaching them. Full bias disclosure; 1) If I hear the word justice and it isn't in the context of Justice (law) then I become highly skeptical of whatever comes next, 2) Berkeley is renowned for the strong leftist POV ... it should be obvious that this will clash with NPOV and 3) Given the issues at Berkeley recently, I am ... let's say concerned about the institution. On the encyclopaedia, we have to pretend to have no point-of-view. We have one, but, it cannot be represented in our editing. If it becomes obvious that we're pushing a POV in our editing, then chances are our edits will be removed or de-POV-ed and possibly we'll be forcibly removed from the topic area. This is known as a TBAN. These two clashes specifically stick out to me, I am sure there are others. I honestly don't think this was a good exercise for your students as it won't allow them the freedom to think and develop their critical faculties, just repeat whatever is on the page in front of them in their own words. On the off-chance that the question arises as to why I isolated social sciences and humanities courses at the start, it's because different disciplines will have different requirements. I don't expect a Mathematician to go out and collect survey data from people like I would a business student, for example. At the same time, I am under no illusion to think that professors' will encourage their students to pursue ideas that fundamentally contradict their biases. I don't see an Environmental Justice student bringing a "climate skeptic" perspective to the table, in the same way I don't think it likely an Astrophysicist will bring a paper on "Why the Geocentric model supported in the Bible is correct" to Neil deGrasse Tyson and expect anything more than an F---. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can I add, if this is going to be part of the curriculum for the next group of students, that I highly recommend your students go via WP:Articles for Creation and have their submissions checked over before they enter the mainspace. It will stop the issue of contributions being sent to AfD and also give the article a chance to be checked against Wiki policies including notability, source reliability and verifiability, NPOV and WP:NOT. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it's a Sunday Truth (and look, it's not only Sunday, but Easter Sunday!) that Wiki allows no synthesis, were it enforced, a good deal of the articles would go away. A more accurate statement is that it tries to allow no synthesis except that which anyone, barring insanity, would agree on. There are plenty of unsourced conclusions, but only the ones that no one could question without feeling stupid should be left alone. Yeah, this is nit-picking, but it's very, very obvious from some of the words above that nits are about to be (selectively) picked. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The last thing I'd want to be doing now is sending mixed signals when wikipolicy firmly states; don't synthesize. Even the material that the instructors and students are given says that. Does it happen? yeah course it does. One of our FA's is full of synthesis and OR - Using primary source Suetonius to draw conclusions about what Suetonius thought. That doesn't mean it's good. Now, if you tell me the sky is blue then no I do not expect a citation. I can't, however, think of an instance where synthesis would be expressly allowed. Especially not on a controversial topic; Some of the contributions fall directly under WP:ARBAPDS. Not an easy topic area to be editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't meant as, and needn't be taken, as a mixed signal: if people can draw two different conclusions from a set of facts, wiki articles should have a cite for any conclusions stated (and, of course, should have cites for all the possible conclusions, not just the ones a particular wikitor likes.) If there is no other conclusion to be drawn, though, leaving it uncited isn't uncommon. Finding examples of this does not invalidate the need to cite contentious conclusions. Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the materials from the WikiEd program tell them to do. They were following the guidance as I just explained above with this comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood will read. Thanks for taking the time to relink it to me. Serves me right for skimming through some of the later parts of the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Have now read the Orientation for Instructors and "Designing a Misplaced Pages writing and research assignment". My first thought is... the guidance is generally accurate but doesn't give an instructor more than superficial insight into how Misplaced Pages works. I'll be honest, a 30 minute course to tackle the core policies of the encyclopaedia ... I've been here two years and I still regularly have to go back to policies. I only found out a week ago about WP:CCSI. Consensus is the toughest one to grasp, because, consensus dictates what falls under OR, NPOV, etc, etc. I'll have to think on this. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re Issues of Race and Class:

The claim by the instructor that the negativity was likely "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" is not at all surprising for an instructor who likely is an expert in the study of civil rights and other similar justice movements. If you read the literature of this field--which I have--such negativity and dismissiveness is indeed the most common response when such issues are brought to the attention of those in power. Consider the civil rights movement and in particular Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous Letter from Birmingham Jail where he responded to the critics who had locked him up for being an "outside agitator". If you look at how these students and instructor have been treated, is the parallel not obvious? Aren't they being accused of being "outside agitators" with claims such as WP:NOTHERE, when all they were doing was following the WikiEd program? Yet for some reason--I can't imagine what that might be--they were treated differently than students and instructors from other classes that do not deal with issues of race and class? It does not seem like a big jump to conclude that inhouse editors' discomfort and dislike of the subject matter might be a leading cause of the negativity the students received (and continue to receive) to their articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment@David Tornheim: Reviewing the materials you linked to above, they seem to echo that "Prof. Rupel encouraged her students to avoid controversial topics" - I've also read literature in this field, in my undergraduate courses, and in law school. Everything you are saying is true, there is injustice in the world and every law student knows that injustice can prevail - there may be a double standard, and you may have to work harder then others to overcome bias, and part of what you can do about it is to make sure your work is policy-compliant. This is necessary, if not sufficient, for anyone who is serious about social justice work. In the real world, when lawyers don't file paperwork before the deadline, their clients are executed. Period, end of story. Obviously, we are more lenient here on Misplaced Pages. I have not said they are WP:NOTHERE, but I have pointed out that editors have personal responsibility to defend their edits against these complaints by applying policy, and this is true for all editors on Misplaced Pages. If you are instructing your students to edit in a controversial area, by posting anti-Trump POV in numerous articles, then the standard you have to meet to justify adding that content is going to be very high. There is no excuse for not doing that AND then speculating about the nefarious motives of Misplaced Pages's editors over and over again, without acknowledging the mistakes that have been made (even after numerous editors have courteously pointed them out.) Seraphim System 16:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Damned straight. Having some cryptofascist point out that "drought" is not always a type of honkonic "oppression" is exactly like being tossed in close quarters, with bad food, and roommates who have forgotten what the opposite sex looks like, but think you might be a reasonable simulacrum. Parallels seldom get much closer than that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* That depends entirely on how you treat the subjects of race and class, but, fuck me this is a pang if I ever saw one; ... and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, no I don't think it has much, necessarily, to do with how you treat the subjects. Some people are uncomfortable with what's going on here because the whole subject makes them uneasy; some are squicked by sophomoric self-satisfied slacktivism about what is sometimes a very real problem. "We're against poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares...", as the poet Lehrer put it. Same apparent behavior, radically (literally) different underlying base.

Yupp, treating people like dirt for no reason under their control stinks, and race relations in many parts of the deep South were a strong example of this. Some less dramatic examples -by both sides, left and right - are a big part of why the US just had an election in which the majority of the electorate decided on the basis of how much damage they were willing to do to their nostrils holding their nose while voting. We don't need that here.

I dunno if we need this here, either; this has gone a little far afield. The important points, I think, to the discussion are that we have left students and teachers with unclear guidance about what the limits of participation are; one hand of Misplaced Pages not knowing what the other is doing. I think we have also set up a situation almost guaranteed to mimic canvassed invasions of subjects, with all that entails. From a POV POV, there isn't that much difference here from a fratload of Frogboys showing up at Snopes. SS, Diferent Direction. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just FYI, see here which describes topics that instructors should avoid:

Not such a good choice

Articles that are "not such a good choice" for newcomers usually involve factors such as a lack of appropriate research material, highly controversial topics that may be well developed already, broad subjects or topics for which it is difficult to demonstrate notability.

• You probably shouldn't try to completely overhaul articles on very broad topics (e.g., Law).
• You should probably avoid trying to improve articles on topics that are highly controversial (e.g., Global Warming, Abortion, Scientology, etc.). You may be more successful starting a sub-article on the topic instead.
• Don't work on an article that is already of high quality on Misplaced Pages, unless you discuss a specific plan for improving it with other editors beforehand.
• Avoid working on something only sparsely covered by literature. Misplaced Pages articles cite secondary literature sources, so it is important that you have enough sources to provide a neutral point of view and be verifiable.
• Don't start articles with titles that imply an essay-like approach (e.g., The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics). These type of titles, and most likely the content too, may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• What a mess. I've done a spot check on some of these articles and edits. I think these students mean well, but they've really got to learn what neutrality means. I'm seeing problems from statements of fact referenced to blatant advocacy organizations and highly partisan sources, to plagiarism/copyvio, to flat out advocacy. Especially in a sensitive topic like politics, this cannot continue. I'd hate to start having to use discretionary sanctions, but if this continues (and especially given that, as above, I'm seeing EJustice completely fail to realize what the problem is, and blame it on everyone and everything else), that's where this story ends. I'd much prefer if the professor and students can realize that their editing is the primary cause for the problem, and understand how that can be fixed. Seraphimblade 02:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• On the area of choosing suitable subjects to write about, there should be a way ahead for classes like this in the future. The WP:AFC process was suggested earlier. However that process results in much work being done before the subject matter is assessed as suitable. (\\\this is then followed up by a random delay and a real possibility of rejection). Instead of AFC, perhaps the proposed article titles could be discussed before students start to write about them. Class projects on environment often get a mention at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry, but there would be more focused projects that could contribute in assessing topic suitability. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Environment is a more suitable project, but may be less active. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk may also be a suitable place to ask about whether a topic is suitable to write about. I do have other comments that I could make, but they are discussed above already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my responding out of order here -- hoping to respond to a few related things at once. @David Tornheim: I had asked about this a while back and got no response. - I'm not sure which group this refers to that did not respond, but apologies if it was on our end. Always happy to talk about the training and how it can be improved. Regarding The courses specifically encourage student to make new articles on a subject not covered by Misplaced Pages..., for many classes it's true that we do not explicitly recommend contributing to an existing article rather than create new ones. Most of the courses we work with do not edit in controversial areas, but rather articles on e.g. insect species, literature, women in science, etc. When we see that they may be treading into controversial areas, as in this case, we communicate concerns and make specific suggestions (including the recommendation that they expanding an existing article rather than create a new one) directly with the instructor/class. I don't think that the same advice quite applies to a class on, say, social insects or women in geology -- though, of course, that isn't to say that creating new articles is better, but that it's not as risky in the same sense that creating a new climate-related article is. It may be that it makes sense to include this advice somewhere more accessible than on a person-to-person off-wiki basis, but classes working in controversial areas do typically get this advice. For a sense of which activities are most common, I will add that so far this term, students have worked on more than 5700 existing articles, and created 391 new ones.

@Mr rnddude: highly recommend your students go via WP:Articles for Creation - This has come up a number of times regarding student editors over the past several years, but at least as frequently from the opposite direction, as far as I can remember (i.e. better not to have them go through AfC). Keep in mind there are a lot of students editing Misplaced Pages. We don't want to put a burden on a volunteer process like AfC. It's the same reason we don't recommend instructing students to go through, say, GAN. Some articles get to pretty high levels of quality (and some do get to GA), but incorporating it into assignment design would strain a process that could always use more volunteers. It's also difficult for an instructor to use a process like AfC because while AfC volunteers do a great job, instructors need to adhere to a strict review schedule, which isn't reasonable to expect out of AfC. Years ago when students did routinely go through AfC, it was not uncommon for articles to sit in a queue until after the class was over, meaning it became unlikely they would return to make revisions based on feedback. Instructors also need to ensure that student articles are all evaluated in roughly the same way, whereas the type and extent of feedback provided at AfC varies somewhat.

Regarding doesn't give an instructor more than superficial insight into how Misplaced Pages works, I'd recommend, if you haven't already, taking a look at the timeline (such as the one for this class). Training is just one part of the support students receive. There are also handouts, the structure/instructions of the assignment itself via the timeline, staff support, and various tools built into the Dashboard (the sort of tools accessible by anyone, just the instructor, or just staff Wikipedians, depending on what it does). Every class is assigned a Content Expert who can provide recommendations, advice, feedback, etc. to students, and several staff members typically advise the instructor before and during the assignment. But just as someone can decide not to go through AfC, there's no way to guarantee a student will request feedback when it's suggested they do so, or to follow other specific advice before posting something. As I mentioned, there are a lot of classes editing Misplaced Pages. For the most part, they are entirely uncontroversial and thus don't attract notice. Most of the time, when a problem comes up, it's addressed quite quickly. Sometimes a class runs into some big problems and we rally to try to address them. Aside from the Environmental Justice class, there are 350 others active just in this spring term. A few years ago the number was a fraction of that, and (though I don't have the statistics handy -- we do track them to evaluate how we're doing), I think there are actually fewer incidents now, despite the greater numbers (though that doesn't include courses Wiki Ed does not support -- if you see one of these, evident by the absence of Wiki Ed template on the student and/or article page, you can flag them at WP:ENB). Some of the reason for this is growing a little bit as an organization e.g. hiring Content Experts (though we're still quite small), but a lot of the reason more classes don't pop up on pages like this one is because the support is based on continuously updated best practices, informed in large part by community feedback.

So on that note (and as a sort of TL;DR) I'd like to invite anyone interested to open a discussion on my talk page (or WP:ENB if you prefer) to discuss ways to improve Wiki Ed's resources. Apologies for the length of this response. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've looked over the discussions here and on various users' talk pages, and I find myself agreeing in particular with Neutrality and Seraphimblade. It's simply a fact that when class projects come to Misplaced Pages, they will get the best outcomes when they accept the Misplaced Pages community's norms, rather than expect Misplaced Pages to adjust to them. If you don't like it, then don't use us for a class project. I encourage the instructor to read WP:ASSIGN, and both the instructor and some of the editors who have opined here to read WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: So, do you agree with Seraphimblade that students should be effectively prohibited from working in controversial areas by telling them in large, red, blinking, bolded, 72-point "DO NOT DO THAT"? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he should answer that before you tell us whether you've stopped beating your wife. Anmccaff (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I don't remember saying I was beating my wife. Please re-read the transcript.  ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, but you were asking a loaded question, of which the this is the classic example. No one is saying that students can't do this, merely warning them that they may catch hell, and see their contributions disposed of. No hand is going to reach out of the monitor and stop them. No one (else) is going to coddle them, though, and a good "Here Be Dragons" sign will let 'em know. Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with me. But you elided crucial context to what I said. It is a bad idea for any new editor, student or otherwise, to jump feet first into highly controversial areas subject to discretionary sanctions, and they're very likely to get their fingers burned if they do. With students, where their experience of editing can be guided, it is far better for them to learn how Misplaced Pages works in less charged areas, and then go into the minefields once they have some idea how to navigate them. I do not want to set any editors up to fail, but especially not students who are required to edit for a class. I would much rather see them have a positive experience than get thrown in way over their heads. Seraphimblade 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My response is the same as on User_talk:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed), that large, red, blinking, bolded, 72-point "DO NOT DO THAT" is not appropriate for the educational materials (or for new editors in general). It is my belief that doing so would directly violate two of our core pillar policies of "anyone can edit" and "be bold". Experienced editors do not WP:OWN controversial articles. Having a content expert oversee the addition of material on controversial subjects, such as class, race and inequality, is completely appropriate and we should welcome it. IMHO, this class's work is a very positive addition to Misplaced Pages, despite all the hand-wringing and misplaced ad hominem claims of WP:NOTHERE.

Additionally, I believe that having new editors and students work on controversial areas is an excellent way for these students to learn about how conflicts are resolved--something they would not encounter if they only edited and worked on articles on obscure topics, that perhaps no one else but the student has an interest in. Having students work on a controversial subject puts them right into the thick of it, as to how Misplaced Pages really functions and gives them a chance to work with other experienced editors who are also interested in the topic and familiar with the WP:RS. Students overseen by content experts and Wiki Ed support are likely to bring the most current and relevant high quality WP:RS into our articles and help alleviate systemic bias. The presence of students in controversial areas is a net positive and again, I welcome such work.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Much like Seraphimblade, I agree with myself, especially about my recommendation of WP:RGW. As for 72-point font, no, it should be 71-point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I had figured that AfC might create burdens on wiki. I just figured itd be less stressful than to have multiple editors pounding away at your work with comments. That and also the actually avoiding having your article taken to AfD. Or like this unfortunate instance where we're at AN/I. Other than that, my comment about the introductory course was specifically about the guidance for the instructor. Does the instructor receive additional material like the students, or just the 1 hour online course? The reason NPOV and essay are concerns in this case is the topic area and course; politicized (it seems to me and ARBPADS has been brought up as well) environmental studies for environmental justice students. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so...

Proposal Community ban, preventing Beatley from moving any of SvG's drafts to Article space. All moves of these articles that Beatley has already performed should be reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support reverting them all. Suggest we wait and see whether we've got through to the user before enacting a ban. and banning. Changed since the user has made no noises at all in the interim and the scale of disruption is larger than I imagined.GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support CB sticking your hands in the commode w/o proper equipment is bad for your health, as our friend is learning with his indef. I'm fine to AfD, I like those. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support His talk page comments show that he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong at all. Topic Ban , unfortunately.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support both the community ban and the reversion of all of these moves to article space. Enough is enough, already. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban & moving these articles back to draftspace. This user isn't actually cleaning up the articles at all, and so isn't solving any of the SvG issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note there are over 1000 drafts and talk pages that have been moved. I'm chatting with MusikAnimal about resurrecting the bot task to shift them all back to draft, since it would clearly be a waste of our time to do it manually. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Beatley is blocked for now, but he is not the only one who has being doing bulk restores. There is no urgent need to move the articles restored by these editors back to draft. The audit result will be to just delete them all. Simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks, now I understand. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Primefac: Sorry for the late reply. Do we still need help moving the drafts? If you instead decide to delete them, either now or with all the unreviewed drafts, I can generate a list for you (if you don't already have one) and you can use Twinkle's batch delete tool to nuke them. Alternatively MusikBot II would be happy to undergo a quick BRFA to automate deletion. Best — MusikAnimal 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, no worries. It sounds like they'll be nuked regardless of their location (since the improper movement has been noted), so I think as far as the bot goes we're all set. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Support TBAN, but... I'm not sure if that alone is going to suffice, long term; the user seems to have fundamental competency issues with multiple important policies (WP:RS and WP:BURDEN chief amongst them), and with basic process generally. are we just kicking the can down the road to another group of editors by protecting this one narrow content area but not addressing the underlying issues with this user? This seems like a scenario where either some mentoring or broader restrictions might be called for. Snow 06:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing and closing will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when is the mass nuking going to happen? My AfD bundle attempt has been met with resistance. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended reply

• See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. The deadline to cut off the SvG article clean-up effort is 24 April 2017, five days from now. After that we create lists of who did what to help with audit of the clean-up, then delete all the remaining SvG drafts. The audit will find editors who did mass restores without checking the articles. All the articles they restored will also be mass deleted.
• AfD's are likely to be rejected because many of the subjects of the SvG stubs are technically notable and warrant articles. The problem is many of the stubs contain errors. some serious, which will linger even after improvements. It is simplest to wipe them out and start from scratch. But many are on notable subjects and can be recovered. That is what the clean-up was meant to do.
• Beatley saw a conspiracy to wipe out a huge number of articles on notable subjects, and set about trying to save as many as he could, a tedious and mechanical effort much like the effort made by Sander.v.Ginkel when creating them all. Beatley was not responsive to appeals to take more care, perhaps because he did not follow the logic, but I think had good intentions.

I see no bad intent. Beatley's energy and determination are impressive and he may become a valuable contributor. I would give the benefit of doubt and lift the block, either before or after the clean-up is complete. I hope I do not have to eat these words. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

agree with character judgement. A lot of the articles clearly flunk GNG, and just about any and every policy, but I will just wait for the nuking. L3X1 (distant write) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CyberBrinda

Hi everyone,

OK, this user has submitted a review appeal on UTRS ticket is #17984. They were blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing back in October 2016 by SpacemanSpiff. There was also an accusation of them being a sockpuppet. Back in October 2016, they were offered the standard offer which they have taken us up on. They have said in their unblock appeal that they did not intend to be uncivil and they did not intend to vandalise Misplaced Pages. They've said that they have now read all the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages and if unblocked, they promise to be open-minded and converse with other editors.

I asked CheckUser to run a CU check and Ponyo found nothing. Do we give them another chance?--5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• An editor who did nothing but add utterly promotional material, "sourced" to non-RS pageant- and modelling blogs, pageant web sites and similar, and create tonnes of articles about utterly non-notable models and "beauty-queens", and showed all signs of being part of a very large net of intermeshed sockfarms (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove and others) that has engaged in that kind of very promotional editing for many years here? Umm, NO THANKS. - Tom | Thomas.W 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Looking through their contribution history, it is clear their acknowledgement of their past behavior is disingenuous. Boomer Vial 11:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• No. Or, just for fun, we can wait until This AfD, which is clearly the reason why they're back here, has concluded. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Classic :D — O Fortuna 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So Its going to be declined? L3X1 (distant write) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt anything useful is going to come out of unblocking here, in addition to the blatant promotional activity, he was abusing editors on here by calling them rabid dogs (this isn't the only such account I blocked, there's another one too who then explained that he meant to say "that's ok" in Japanese). Given that I think it'd be an incredible waste of time if this person were to be allowed back here again. —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cs california

The above user is making changes to the infobox location maps on hundreds of articles about New York City places -- presumably using semi-automated software -- without having held a centralized discussion to receive consensus to do so, and continues to make these changes after being told they need to have such a discussion . Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a pattern. El_C 19:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that previous discussion, I've rolled back the majority of the edits - I may have missed some, and if I rolled back something I shouldn't have, any editor is welcome to restore it. I think that because the editor is certainly now aware of the need to get a consensus to make mass edits, if it happens again a block for disruption should be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cs california for going through articles and adding the relevant maps. I fail to see what the issue is here, let alone what on Earth the "incident" is that Beyond My Ken has whipped up here. I've already started with reverts to BMK's edits for those articles that have appeared on my watchlist and I agree that BMK should be blocked if any further such incidents are manufactured. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Response Since they are my edits I think it is fair that I give a response. I do not see the issue here there is a box for maps on the building adding it in is in the template example. It seems like Beyond My Ken is manufacturing an incident based on his personal Ownership issues. Here is my following arguments to support this:

1. Beyond My Ken is not a against the maps but want control on how they are implement as seen here. Note that he said " any sentient person should already know where it is (New York)" I disregarded this for two reasons (1) he has previously shown to be against foreign users by made disparaging remarks a users where english is their second language such as a Vietnamese wikipedia sysops (IP shown here) rather than work with him and correct his grammatical mistakes he view them to be malicious (2) He can easily remove the USA tag and I would not even care.
2. Beyond My Ken is disregarding Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus. If the maps were a major problem BMK should have asked to remove the map feature from the template box and request for discussion. But did not do that.
3. Maps help foreign users gain context on where and entity exist or occur. As seen above Beyond My Ken asked to remove the USA map from the mapgroup, which takes up one line of text and the map is hidden using javascript.
4. As seen with this and this edit Beyond My Ken does not mind maps pre-existing on pages but his reversions to my edits show full removal of maps rather than edits to accommodate his criteria. You can see the obvious vandalism and abuse of the rollback privileges here, where updated photo was added, here where an updated image was added, here where an image was removed again, here where coordinates incorporated into the template box was removed, here where coordinates were removed,here where a more detailed map was removed for a lower quality one, here where coordinates are removed,where WHOLE template boxes were removed, where WHOLE template boxes were removed, Remove WHOLE two template boxes just to show a few. Not to mention the user has also been previously blocked for edit waring
5. Last he used 2 year old issues tangentially related as a leverage for personal attacks despite the issue being resolved and hilarious claims where I am accused of using a bot. This can be disprove by the sparsity of the edits he rolled back above and a comparison of request sent from my IP compared to a wikipedia bot going through a list.

If any administrator can review both of our arguments and put your foot down on the issue it would be appreciated. --Cs california (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I take your point, but still, if you're going to be making large-scale changes en mass, it's best to try to gain consensus for them (even if they seem like intuitive improvements) on the talk page of the pertinent Wikiproject. It only takes a minute or two. El_C 09:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that if it was a new feature or something but if you look at both examples on Template:Infobox_building I am just filling in data that was not there. And I am not aware of the which wikiproject page you are referring to. But please also let me know what deems this reasonable for a Administrator noticeboard rather than a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests --Cs california (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't have hurt to leave a courtesy note at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York City. And it would take a lot less time than writing all of the above. El_C 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pointedly: 1. There's no number, obviously. But you are trying to avoid running into editors who object to your mass changes—like was the case today, as was the case two years ago, as may be the case two years for now. 2. There is no requirement, there is trying to avoid friction with other editors. 3. No, you should not undo all your edits if they were useful, nor should you report users to my talk page if they sparsely repeat the same edits—that question is tendentious. 4. Why are you asking me? I will not indicate it, because I made no such claim. But you splitting the conversation in multiple forums is a problem. If you're going to continue to make mass edits without notice, you can continue to expect objections to occur from time to time. All which can be easily resolved with a brief courtesy note at the pertinent wikiproject. It's up to you: continue carrying on as before and run into difficulties like these, say, every two years, or be preventative. El_C 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cs california's attempt -- with help from Alansohn -- to make this about me rather than about their actions is a fine example of "the best defense is a good offense", and I have nothing further to say about that. Here are some points that I believe should be considered:

• The discussion from two years ago was directly applicable to the situation now, which is why I relied on it as a model as to what should be done now: mass edits were made by Cs california without consultation and consensus, and when editors found out about those, and discussed them, the consensus was to roll them back. There was no real difference between the situations, nothing changed in the intervening years to make the consensus arrived at then inapplicable now, hence I feel quite justified in having rolled back the current edits. So did the several editors, including one very prominent admin, who thanked me.
• This is especially the case because I attempted to start a discussion about their edits on Cs california's talk page, and aside from asking, basically, "what's the problem", they did not discuss, but instead continued to make the edits. An editor who has had problematic editing brought to their attention and does not engage in discussion about it and continues to make the problematic edits should not be surprised when action is taken in regard to those edits.
• If in the process of rolling back hundreds of edits, I inadvertently deleted other material which should not have been reverted, I apologize for being human and occasionally making a mistake or two. Obviously, I have no problem with that material being restored, and invite any editor who wants to look through the hundreds of rollbacks and find it to do so.
• In the interest of accuracy, I have been blocked for edit warring 8 times in my 12 years here, and once for incivility. I am not proud of that, but those are the facts. They also have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation, and Cs california's bringing it up is simply an example of attempting to poison the well. (Just to relate this to another thread on this page, I only felt that two of those blocks were unjustified; the rest I deserved.)
• Cs california -- and Alansohn for that matter -- doesn't seem to know that the name of the location map on articles about historic districts automatically generates a category: thus if "Lower Manhattan" is the first location map, then the category "Historic districts in Lower Manhattan" is automatically generated and added to the article. If there is no such existing category, the cat added will be a redlink. Redlink categories are something to be avoided.
• To a certain extent, the addition of numerous maps to the location map reminds me of something we did as kids. We would string out the location of where we lived as far Ias possible, as in: I live in Personville, Idaho, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group etc. etc. It's fun and all, but there comes a point where it's totally unnecessary. Nobody looking up Macy's Herald Square needs to see where it is on a USA location map, because the scale of the map is only showing where New York City is, and Macy's Herald Square is not the article one should be going to to find out where New York City is located in the United States. The location map has a function: to show the reader where something specific is located, and the larger the scale becomes, the less that information is being provided. That's why "Manhattan" and "New York City" are sufficient to sites in Manhattan, and why the addition of "New York" (the state) and "US" is unnecessary and, frankly, silly. In any case, there are points to be made against them, as I have here, and (I assume) points to be made for them, which is why a consensus discussion was necessary, so that editors could express their viewpoints before the mass changes were made, instead of doing so afterwards.
• The other stuff that Cs california brings up, such as that I'm supposedly biased against foreign editors, is pure unadulterated garbage.
• I doubt that I have anything more to say about this, so unless someone wants an answer to a specific question, I don't plan to be posting in this thread again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good heavens folks, it's just a push-pin map. (I observed the revert on Chicago Union Station but took no action.) Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly why I think it is just a minor edit and if you did not like it you can just revert it like Mackensen but I see your case for no action since the infobox might get cluttered. --Cs california (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your mediation comments El_C. So if it was only the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York City Why was it not put for discussion linking it to the page? I would have just stopped edits and put up for discussion before further edits. If this was not an WP:Ownership issue he would not escalate a small problem that could have been solved per Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

1. If you look at BMK's edits he never mentioned anything of that nature and just randomly accused me of using a bot.
2. The issue two years ago I made mass edits users redirected me to a project page and we discussed it there and we came to a consensus on maps on cities, this has nothing to do with that as it is a different template and project. They did not accuse me of randomly using a bot without proof tarnishing the credibility and there are no cases of my account being blocked as an issue of editwarring. Making comment on users thanking you for reporting is an irrelevant attempt to gain brownie points.
3. For the point of editwaring it is relevant to the point of WP:Ownership being a persistent problem this is not poisoning the well based on how the issue was handled this simple issue was rashly post to Admin notice board instead of discussing it in the WikiProjects page (as suggested by El_C) that I did not know about or the Dispute resolution as recommended by wikipedia. Note that there was not no attempt to link the wikiprojects page on my talk page either. Even recently you can see that BMK is again engaging in starting edit wars with Alansohn at 22:37, 16 April 2017. Even being blocked however many times he mentioned he persists in attacking users that touch his page demonstrating that the blocks were not really effective in addressing the WP:Ownership problem
4. " I inadvertently deleted other material which should not have been reverted," hence proving my case on careless abuse of the rollback feature to attack my edits. Other times where my edits had to be reverted other editors were courteous enough to not touch irrelevant content. Even when I mentioned this with links above no attempts were made to review or reverse the edits showing that blanking of content was intentional. Also his concerns were New York base pages but he reverse edits on many pages pertaining to San Francisco.
5. About the "historic districts" the majority of edits were not those type they were building hence this point is irrelevant. His attempt to drag user Alansohn into this is just another attempt to discredit users that edit pages pertaining to the WP:Ownership problem
6. I already addressed the issue with the multimaps above, the difference from this iteration to the previous from wikicities is that it does not clutter the infobox and is hidden by javascript to one line. As I mentioned before I do not care which map is in and you can edit it if you want, but most of the updates refined the map. The USA is just added on the end if you erased it I do not care. It was a very small issue.
7. Since he was against the placing #USA and had a incident with a previous user where English was their second language this is relevant for the accessibility of others. Otherwise I would not have brought it up.

This is just a BMK targeting my account for WP:Ownership issues on a small issue that can solved with simple Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution or consensus discussion link.--Cs california (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing by Herostratus

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

So, this user wrote an essay Misplaced Pages:Being blocked hurts. In January they moved it from user space to project space. I made some edits to that essay that they reverted. I opened a discussion on the talk page regarding my perspective on the essay. They did not engage in that discussion in the nearly two months that followed. I then proposed moving it back into userspace as it seems they wanted to WP:OWN it and keep it complete with the over-the-top hyperbole that comprises basically the entire essay.

So, a discussion ensued. Now, I get that the nature of the discussion by definition personalized it from the outset a bit more than is usual in a move discussion. But what has gone on there is, like the essay itself, a bit over the top:

• this edit] Which is entirely directed at me, and in which I am told "Stop it", "calm down", "You have an overly harsh and punitive attitude", "You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- " ( a fairly serious accusation) "On being told by me that you can't do that, you're now having a tantrum and suggesting moving it out of main essay space. Stop it." (a second direct order to cease and desist in the same edit) and "leave this work to others".

• Some other users commented over the next week and a half, and one of them seemed not to have gotten what the nomination was saying, so I attempted to clarify it and that was met with another long rant by Herostratus, ending with this proclamation: "I have no choice but to call in reinforcements. If you think I am "owning" this page, I feel bound to get other editors involved with the page."

• And they did just that, going not to a central noticeboard, but to the editor retention WikiProject, and posting not a neutral request for previously uninvolved users to comment, but a direct attempt to recruit users to do things to "de-fang" the rationale for the move.

• I warned them for canvassing, using both the standard template and a my own personal message. to which their reaction was to cite WP:TEMPLAR and suggest that I am the one in the wrong here, and that by saying they wanted to own the essay I gave them no choice but to go ahead and willfully canvass people to do their bidding, while actually suggesting at the same time that "isn't their fault" if people find the move discussion as a result of their canvassing.

I honestly don't know what to say or do with someone who shows such a startling lack of self-awareness and denial of their own culpability, while simultaneously displaying the very traits under discussion. Help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless Herostratus allows other editors to contribute to the essay, it needs to be moved out of Misplaced Pages-space into their user space, where it can represent their own personal opinion, and they can maintain complete control over its contents. Otherwise, if it stays in Misplaced Pages space, it's subject to the policy against WP:OWNERSHIP - although any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And, the openly-declared, deliberate violation of WP:CANVASS? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say those deserve a firm "don't do it again" warning, maybe even a trout, since Herostratus should know better, and a follow up block if they do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• ANI? Over an essay? REALLY??? EEng 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "over the essay". The requested move is where the essay itself is being discussed, or should be anyway. I'm looking to address the behavioral issues, specifically deliberate, premeditated canvassing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• XFD for the subtle attack on the establishment. What useless writings. L3X1 (distant write) 21:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, but FYI, there is no "XFD" just a move request, and the subkject here is Herostratus' behavior in that discussion, not the merits of the essay itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a somewhat involved party to this mess, but I'd like to point out that more than once Herostratus has admitted to wrongdoing and claimed that they had no choice. I urge admins to uphold the concept that our guidelines and policies do not become moot if you think you need to have your way. Also anyone that says "Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs." probably ought not be editing this encyclopedia. That's just my opinion and no one likes my opinions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• I looked at the diffs in support of the so-called "blatant canvassing". It was no more canvassing than it was canvassing for the OP to start this ANI thread here. It's not canvassing, and certainly not blatant. What we have here is a "content" dispute over a mere essay, which does not belong at ANI. If it's not the worst thing in the world to be blocked, then it's not the worst thing in the world to have someone disagree with you about adding a paragraph about it not being the worst thing in the world to be blocked. I expect that the parties here are familiar with WP:BRD. Now go and D. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No Administrative Action Needed

Per WP:Canvassing: not all canvassing is harmful to the encyclopedia or even forbidden. There are clear conditions for improper canvassing and the specific actions shown here of this regular and experienced editor do not meet those IMO. No action is necessary. I agree with the comment by Beyond My Ken, ownership is a problem here, but I do not see clear evidence of that being disruptive (edit warring) here. Canvassing when done properly is not ownership IMO but an attempt to prevent wp:local consensus. I also agree with EEng that this AN/I was not called for and a wp:boomerang may occur if this is not closed. And on that note it should be mentioned that this appears to come from a disagreement at a RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Being blocked hurts where admin input may be helpful. This AN/I may represent wp:battleground.--Endercase (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The user is obviously emotional about the suggestion that "their" essay should get demoted to userspace, this is a normal reaction. The user does not represent a harmful or disruptive faction in Misplaced Pages. Their essay is separate issue that should not be discussed at this AN/I. Canvassing and WP:own are the point. Once again they have not done anything mentioned in the improper portion of WP:Canvassing nor do they appear to be engaged in edit warring. They do, however, not filter their comments addressed to other users this could be problematic in the future. They also appear to ignore the advice of multiple editors to refrain from commenting on WP:HURTS and from commenting on their AN/I in an emotional manner. However, I once again do not think that any Administrative or AN/I based action is needed in this case at this point. As to Hijiri88 suggestion that I should be banned for these comments please provide a policy or consensus based explanation for what I am doing wrong. Endercase (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested a boomerang. EEng 22:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry EEng#s I did not intend for it to look like either one of us was suggesting a boomerang, I intended for it to state that that is generally the consequence of AN/I like this that go on for too long. The crowd likes blood or something, hopefully they don't turn on me XD. I have just removed that portion of the statement. Endercase (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(Response from User:Herostratus). I agree, no action needed. Let's see, to break it out, I think there are four things in play here:

1. User:Beeblebrox sure doesn't like me, my essay, or my whole general attitude very much.
2. WP:OWN on WP:HURTS.
3. WP:CANVASS, on the Requested Move at WP:HURTS.
4. Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs.

As to the first: oh well. Not sure what we can do about that here. Can't expect everyone to like us.

As to the second (WP:OWN)... as User:Beyond My Ken says "any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay"; this makes sense to me, and that's exactly what I was doing, in my opinion. Maybe my opinion is wrong, but it's reasonable. Since it is reasonable I'm entitled to act on for the time being, I think.

I explained all this on the talk page of the essay (Misplaced Pages talk:Being blocked hurts) and on my talk page (at User talk:Herostratus#April 2017. It's all there, here's an excerpt:

Upon encountering this page, if you don't agree with it (and fine, that's your perfect right), you are entitled to write your own essay... and link to it from this page. You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- man, you can't add a section to an essay that contradicts the nutshell and the basic thrust of the essay. I can't go over to the essay Misplaced Pages:No one cares about your garage band and add a section to the effect of "On the other hand, forget what you just read and ignore everything else in this essay. If you have a band, you should write an article about it, because our mission is or should be to document the artistic life of the world, including every band that exists" or whatever.

The main reason for this is: the only real use of any essay is to present a cogent argument with examples and so forth so that editors can make a point by invoking the shortcut without having to type it over and over. That's the main use. The essay needs to speak in one voice -- not rigidly, but more or less having a coherent point of view.

But OK, if you don't agree, what's the remedy? If it's a Wikispace page, Userfy it -- which is being proposed right now. I think the WP:OWN argument is false and disingenuous (the real motive is objection to the text of the essay on the merits), but I could be wrong, and anyway, if Beeblebrox can convince or bamboozle enough people into believing it, then that solves that problem. And if he can't... that is life I guess.

As to the third, WP:CANVASS.

I mean, yeah, I see the point, but on the other hand, what am I supposed to do? As I explained on my talk page, if I'm WP:OWNing the page as I've been accused of, I need to try to get other eyes and voices involved in helping to curate and improve the page. I mean, I didn't do anything for a long time, but Beeblebrox kept accusing me of OWN. Anyway, if I am guilty of canvassing (could be, but I think I have justification, probably) what's a good remedy? Well, coming here! Here there's a bunch of people (adminst) who as a statistical group probably won't take kindly to the page, so maybe some of you will go there and vote it off the island, and again, everything shipshape and Bristol fashion.

As to the forth... User:Beeblebrox should relax about this. For some reason he just hates this fucken essay. It's not a condemnation of the admin corps or of anybody. Hell, I've blocked plenty people (90%+ are just drive-by vandals or obvious net negatives (and possibly we should block more people to enforce polite behavior), but for the others -- I didn't like doing it, and it is stressful, and it's doubly stressful if you worry about it and doubt yourself -- but you have to never stop worrying and doubting yourself, and asking yourself if you did everything reasonably possible to avoid that outcome. Otherwise you wake up and you're the LAPD. And I get that its a burnout job and its worse if you're not confident that every block was right -- but every block isn't right, so what can I say?

But that's another discussion. This essay is trying to say one small thing, that is worth saying, and worth saying often enough to be in Wikispace and have a shortcut. And if it really is fringe nonsense, let it ride and everybody will see it for fringe nonsense, and there's your remedy there. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that this is because I don't like you as a person, and then saying nasty things about me. You invoke WP:BULLY when in fact it is you who have tried to bully me away from your precious essay, repeatedly directly ordering me to "stop it". "it" being opening a discussion ion the talk page, which last time I checked is exactly how we are supposed to go about trying to resolve things. And your canvassing really could not be more =blatant. That you would even try to define it as soemthing else or worse yet, openly say that I made you do it is appalling. You announced you were going to do it, and then you did it. That's substantially worse than someone who just doesn't know any better. You've essentially tried to tell me that I have no right to even be at that page if I'm not 100% in agreement with it's overly-privileged first-world-problems perspective on life. Your own privilege is showing, int hat you essentially told me I simply must go away, and when I didn't you called for those you assumed to be your equals to come and assist you in defeating me and making me leave your space, when it was actually our space all along, since you chose to move it into project space. That you can't see how ridiculous you are acting while making it out like I'm tha bad guy is telling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Herostratus: I think both editors are editing in good faith, however your actions are often close to battleground and harassment, at the very least both of you appear to not be AGF on the part of the other editor. I would like to request that both of you leave the AN/I and the RfC alone for a little while and consider removing some of your comments. I'm sure both of you have conveyed your POV on the issue and the community as a whole will come to a consensus on these matters. You both appear to be very involved in these issues. If you would like to take a break from them please work together and critique User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction as it is up for RfC and will be merged soon. Endercase (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK! OK, if it will help: I was canvassing. I did it and it felt good. There! But I'm not lying when I say I also wanted to de-fang the OWN accusations by getting other eyes on the page. I did! And I was frustrated by these accusations since, rightly or wrongly, I believe they're not justified. So it's complicated.

Maybe you're right about all this Beeblebrox, OK? Who can truly know these things. It's hard to know if one's actions are proper. You're a good Wikipedian and very valuable, and I'm sorry we're at loggerheads here. It's not a big deal, and maybe you'll win your point. I'll shut up now, and whatever is decided here or there by consensus is fine. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: For the essay to remain in Misplaced Pages space it needs to be subject to normal community editing practices and participation. Are you willing to let that happen? --NeilN 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Beeb, please leave the damn essay alone, except add a link to an opposing separate one if you write it (and Herostratus, please allow such a link). That's a known viable practice: see for example WP:FAIL near the top. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @User:NeilNWell yes, of course. I mean, ANI is not a place to decide the placement of an essay anyway. That's up to discussion on the talk page or WP:MFD (or in this case WP:RM). I mean, obviously I can't edit the page now -- I'd get blocked for sure, probably even if I reverted a page blanking. So "willing to let that happen" is out of my hands in any case. But I was not going to edit the page anymore anyway, since I'd been accused of owning it, and even though I don't agree with accusation I'm sensitive to the possibility that I might be wrong about that.

As an aside, I thought I was writing a little anodyne essay that would probably never go anywhere. I'm actually gobsmacked by the hornet's nest I've stirred up here -- the visceral strength of the response "No. Being blocked does not affect editors emotionally, or if it does it is not worth considering -- and it is not just wrongheaded, but illegitimate for anyone to say different".

It's depressing. Although certainly educational.

In the meantime... so, now an editor has changed the nutshell from

This page in a nutshell: It hurts to be blocked!

to

This page in a nutshell: It hurts to be blocked! But, being blocked isn't the worst thing that could happen.

which I consider a hostile edit, because it weakens the thrust of the essay.

I mean, did the editor approach the page with with the frame of mind "Well, I generally agree with the point, but it could be improved, to make its point better. It could be trimmed, or other edits made for clarity, or perhaps some ancillary points expounded on" and so forth. Well of course not. The editor approached it "Well, I sure don't agree with that, guess I'll weaken and muddy up the message". I consider that a hostile and deliberately destructive edit.

Obviously I can't do anything about it, though. Oh well. But really, for shame on the admin corps for acceding to this kind of behavior.

I get that I'm not getting through. I feel like a traveler in strange lands -- if I just repeat myself loudly and slowly enough, I'll be understood. So let's see, I'll try again. Misplaced Pages:Neutrality of sources (WP:NPOVS) has the nutshell

This page in a nutshell: While Misplaced Pages is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral.

I don't particularly agree with WP:NPOVS. It says that National Review is a reliable source, while I think that National Review is usually a poor source for facts, and so forth. (It's a valid essay though because it is cogent and makes reasonable argument for its points, which are sensible and worth considering though IMO mostly wrong.)

So OK, can I go in and change the nutshell of WP:NPOVS to

This page in a nutshell: While Misplaced Pages is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not required to be neutral. But you should always avoid non-neutral sources when at all possible, and seek neutral ones instead.

and make commensurate changes to the body of the page?

Of course not. Instead, the proper thing to do is to for me to write an essay refuting WP:NPOVS, link to it at the bottom of WP:NPOVS if I want, and when someone throws WP:NPOVS at me in conversation (which is just a proxy for typing the entire essay into the conversation after all) respond with "can't agree, see X essay for detailed reasons why". That is the Misplaced Pages way, and it always has been. And it has to be that way. We can't have people making hostile edits in essay space and have a functioning essay system. That would be the way toward chaos. As administrators charged with keeping the peace you should be to suss that.

I've made this point several times, here, on the essay talk page, and on my page. No one has refuted it because it can't be refuted by pointing to logic or practice, and you all know it can't be refuted.

Look, I understand the sentiment "Wow, I hate this essay. I totally disagree with it". I'm asking people to step away from that for a moment and consider the principle. As administrators you are supposed to be able to do that. We have procedural remedies for "I don't like this essay". One really good remedy is "then don't cite it, and ignore or refute it when someone does". Other remedies are nominating the page for deletion, which a procedure is undergoing right now. There is no good basis for deleting the page -- it's not nonsense, or badly written, or unclear, pointless, or fringe, or said better elsewhere, or any of the actual reason we delete essays, of which "I don't agree with it" is not one -- but, you know how it it goes. It will probably be deleted anyway, because... well, Misplaced Pages is not Nirvana, it is full of people and people have emotions, and fine.

But it doesn't really belong here at ANI. Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Bona fide canvassing is never acceptable. Sometimes what is called "canvassing" is not bona fide canvassing. What happened here was bona fine canvassing. It was anything but neutral, and was posted in an extremely biased forum. WER, honestly, comes across as a cess-pool of "I was blocked and I didn't deserve it; I'm done with Misplaced Pages" and "my friend was blocked and he didn't deserve it; he told me that he's done with Misplaced Pages"; other users who have legitimate ER concerns have told me the feel essentially the same about the forum, including one recipient of their "Editor of the Week" award.

Endercase should, if he doesn't strike his above comments, probably be blocked. He posted a similar comment about me a few weeks earlier and was told by Bishonen that he was lucky she hadn't blocked him. He posted an insincere-looking apology at that time, and has now done essentially the same to another editor.

Honestly, I think several of the "oppose" !votes in the RM should not be posting there until they have a few more blocks under their belt. I don't feel like Herostratus fully understands the experience of Wikipedians who have received several blocks that probably weren't warranted. My first block was the result of a disruptive user lying to an admin about my behaviour (the admin apologized to me a few days later); my second was the result of a misunderstanding for which I immediately apologized; ditto for my most recent block (I think it was my sixth overall); I could go on, but honestly I don't care. those things are in the past, and I'm here to build an encyclopedia. No one who isn't here to build an encyclopedia (and that includes people who spend all their time complaining about Misplaced Pages) has a "right" to edit here. An essay that essentially says "Don't block people because they might not be HERE and we don't want NOTHERE users to get upset and leave" is way out of line with the core principles of the encyclopedia. Editors who actually work to build the encyclopedia are allowed hold this view, but they should express it in their user space.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot to chew on... these're interesting questions, how well our blocking policy works, what are some of the intended and unintended side effects of how we block, whether in general we're blocking for the right things, and so forth. Probably ANI is not the best place for that, one reason being the threads don't last...

If "Wikipedians who have received several blocks that probably weren't warranted" is a large class (I don't know), that IMO is a problem. You don't think its a problem, and obviously a lot of people agree with you.

Welp, OK then. But... If you select for editors who don't mind being blocked, you are selecting for editors who don't have self-respect. If you select for editors who don't have self-respect, you will not have many accomplished people.

Whether we want accomplished people here , or not, is a separate question. Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• We're on completely the wrong track. Essays are supposed to be opinion pieces presenting an argument. If the main contributors to an essay don't like your edits because they think you're not improving the essay (i.e. strengthening the argument), then write an opposing essay. Fairness would require that the original essay should link to yours and vice versa, but WP:POVFORK only applies to articles, not essays. Could someone start an essay called "being blocked feels good" or whatever the opposite of Hierostratus's essay would be called? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Like Being Blocked Is not the End of the World? L3X1 (distant write) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

'Straight up WP:OWN. If an article, rfc or essay is written on Misplaced Pages, other editors have the right to contribute to it, vandalism is pretty tightly defined over here. The edit you described as "vandalisdm" doesn't meet that criteria. If you don't want other to edit your essay, you'll need to move it out of Misplaced Pages.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Endercase: - You've seemed to wholly miss the mark. "Canvassing" is an inherently-malicious behavior that is rightly prohibited. Misplaced Pages is a self-governing project. We achieve this by discussing issues in good faith and forming consensuses. Canvassing is a serious form of disruption that makes consensus-building impossible and replaces actual discussion with a predetermined pseudo-consensus that would not otherwise exist. That may be completely opposite to what the actual community/local consensus might be. The whole point of WP:CANVASS is to draw a distinction between that behavior and actual consensus building. Going to a community noticeboard to ask for input is not canvassing. Adding something to WP:CD is not canvassing. Letting a regular editor of an article know about your proposal is not canvassing. Going to a WikiProject to solicit editors who will take your side is canvassing. Pinging 5 of your on-wiki allies when you see a proposal you disagree with is canvassing. Understand? Canvassing is already enough of a problem without uninformed comments such as this. And a side note, please don't create subheadings that imply an administrative judgment has been made. I know it wasn't your intent but it's not helpful for non-admins to be making statements like that at AN/I. Swarm ♠ 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm willing to admit that is entirely possible, I have been known to miss the mark in the past. I understand that the interpretation of the inappropriate portion of wp:canvass is a bit up for debate these days. For instance is pinging other users or even posting on their talkpage canvassing inappropriate? Or is it just "appropriate notification"? I have seen this debated recently to no effect (draw/no decisive close). Personally I think wp:canvass needs to be split moved to Wp:inappropriate notification and wp:appropriate notification or something of that nature so that these issues can be hammered out. It really isn't my place to do that though, as you point out I am less experienced than many users. Most of us at least agree that notifying other users in secret is inappropriate at least. Also there is general consensus that if you feel like the !vote has been swayed by canvassing a general banner should be added to notify the closing user so that they weigh the logic of !votes and not just the number (as they should be doing anyway). I have not seen any punitive or preventive measures taken recently on this topic though. Also all users are equal, Admin is just a user with direct access to more tools and who has passed a RfA at some point (standards used to be much lower I've been told). Jimbo also suggests it is not a big deal to be an Admin (of course he is just another user too). Back to a point, aren't subheading how !votes for specific proposals organized? Endercase (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS per my argument that there is not currently consensus. Endercase (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User Joaquin93

User only restores articles to old versions, as you can see here and here. He does not give any explanation and does not answer the messages, it seems that he only wants to do vandalism.--Philip J Fry 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: You forgot to notify the editor. Recommend waiting to see if they edit without responding. If they do, then block to get their attention. --NeilN 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block now tbh. Minimal Trevor (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since April 17 (almost a day ago), so I believe that a block would be inappropriate unless this continues further and while this ANI discussion is open (so the user has a chance to respond and explain). I see warnings on this user's talk page, but I don't see where questions were asked or a request for an explanation was attempted. I don't see anything on this user's talk page nor on the article's talk page? Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~ 20:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I followed up with NeilN's ANI notice here with a request to join this discussion and help us understand the reason behind the reverts in question. Hopefully this helps the user to explain what the deal is. :-) ~Oshwah~ 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible NPP restriction on IExistToHelp

Hello when I was reviewing recent changes and article creation pages I noticed that IExistToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tagged an article as being vandalism despite the fact that Google easily verifies that such an event occurred. Afterwords I posted a message not knowing that they have done similar things in the past. Perhaps it might be wise to (temporarily) restrict them from tagging pages for deletion? Any thoughts on this? Sakuura Cartelet 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't go through the talk page history enough. I gave them a final warning . Schwede66 warned them (I did point out to S66 on their talk page the previous history), and here's a permalink showing Kudpung, PamD, and myself all warning them when they started trying in February . They also have clerked the PERM page in the past for NPR, which considering the issues, is a bit ironic. I'd support a topic ban from any deletion or maintenance tagging of articles. They've been given plenty of rope on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

On a side-note re: IExistToHelp, and as an uninvolved party: I noticed the editor has recently requested the following permissions at once: Account creator, Autopatrolled, AutoWikiBrowser, Mass message sender & New page reviewer. Could there be a competency issue at hand?--Cahk (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be hat collecting which is a CIR issue here. KGirlTrucker81 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The article mentioned in the first post was moved to draftspace and then redirected to an existing article, which means the history is still there. This is what it looked like when IETH had put A7 and G3 tags on it - both equally inapplicable. Then, they warned the creator, claiming that the page was an attack page(!) and that it was "pure vandalism because the article had no references"(!!). They need to stop deletion tagging for a while, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Sorry for that incident. Someone else had done the edits on my computer while I was using the restroom at an orchestra practice(at my teacher's house) during break. I will revert all the edits I have done on that page. The page was poorly written, but I agree, it does not fit with the reasons it was tagged with. I apologize to User:Jacktime34 for these actions and the warnings that followed. I have undone them already. I apologize sincerely and promise not to let this happen again. I will stop deletion tagging for a while and try to improve the articles instead. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This brings another, more serious concern up however. You admit that your account was compromised, which can result in an indefinite block of your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I was logged in and he was editing on my laptop which I forgot to close. I have changed my password to my account also. There is no way that can happen now. Plus I have created another account in case this would happen. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: However, your warnings made no sense. You warned me about requesting deletion of Pelican Park High School because it may be notable, but a day later someone else tagged it with a notability tag. For Hetkhamar, you said that it wasn't a hoax. Yes, it is real, but the article does not cite the sources so we don't know where the info comes from. Google is the only search engine that brings results with the village. Bing and Yahoo! both don't bring up results for the village besides Misplaced Pages</ . Most of the sites rely on Google Maps, so technically Google Maps is the only source and the others aren't reliable and don't have facts. Even the government website provides no info, so I have no clue how the author got the info from. By looking at Google Maps? It's IExistToHelp talk 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The warning was based on lack of understanding of policy and consensus. PROD should only be used for articles that are non-controversial. Regardless of where someone stands on the issue, I think everyone would agree that the inclusion of secondary schools is very much a contentious topic on Misplaced Pages, and AfD would have been a much more appropriate venue than PROD. On the G3: sure, but that's an argument about sourcing, which could be made via PROD or AfD. It is not a self-apparent hoax, which is what CSD G3 is for. . Neither of the mistakes alone would have been a huge deal, but it was part of a pattern of not understanding NPP, and lack of responding to people who reached out to try to help you. Edit: Looked again, and it was just the hoax tag and not G3, so I apologize for not looking at the article again, my memory failed me. The tagging was still bad because while the sources provided are not reliable, they are enough to show it exists. Bing actually brings up a government source confirming its existence on this PDF file. The hoax tagging was wrong here, and again shows a lack of the skills needed to patrol new pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The hoax tag was a mistake sure, everyone makes them.It's IExistToHelp talk 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cahk and KGirlTrucker81: I am not the type of person that goes around showing off. There are also other people who did what I do and I am the only one who gets reported? NeilN also brought this up. For one, I requested Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewer two weeks before I did with AutoWikiBrowser and New Page Reviewer. For mass message sender, I wanted to survey people so that they could improve pages with the topics they are best at.It's IExistToHelp talk 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@IExistToHelp: I have not encountered your edits before, nor follow the conversation that has been going on here all that closely. My comment on the request for permission is simple - rarely is there a good reason for an editor to request all those permissions (be that 2 weeks apart, or a few months apart). It may demonstrate a lack of understanding, or just haven't read through all the pages re: permission. This is not against you, but just an observation and comment that is universally accepted in Wiki (and hence @KGirlTrucker81:'s link to hat collecting.--Cahk (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cahk. KGirlTrucker81 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• IExistToHelp is obviously lying about someone else making the edits in question, and life is too short to try to help someone who is not competent when they're going to lie about thier competence. I've indef blocked the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support that block. I have a very low tolerance for blatant lies, and the community's tolerance for them is even lower. ~ Rob₁₃ 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• What? Block sure, they're obviously lying about their mistake, but Christ. How about a week and a courteous link to Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors? They've agreed to stop patrolling and unless you've got links to some otherwise disruptive activity, an indef is just plain bitey. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't really continue to participate in this conversation for logistical reasons, but for whatever it's worth Floquenbeam, I don't think we should indef folks for being immature. The user is motivated and obviously means well, and got caught in a bad spot and made up a bad lie. Seems like a very good candidate for mentoring, that is, if they actually ever come back after a very bitey block and a very bitey comment about it when (other than lying) they've actually been very civil in the whole discussion, and the conduct issue that was raised was very limited in scope and they've already agreed to fix the thing. If we don't want apparent teenagers editing Misplaced Pages, then we need to institute an age requirement. Otherwise we need to deal with apparent teenagers as teenagers, with appropriate expectations and responses. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. First, a fixed duration block makes zero sense in this situation. You are aware they can request an unblock. Second, being incompetent and lying about it is not evidence we have a potential useful collaborator in the making. Third, why are you valuing being polite over not lying? Fourth, we're quite happy to have teenagers editing here, but they need to be mature enough to do so. We are not required to take them as they come, and just accept their immaturity because they're young. And fifth, feel free to mentor this editor as much as you like; you know where their talk page is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(more) Just to emphasize that I'm not some idiot being mean to innocent newbies because I don't know what I'm doing: User talk:WangViolin. Apparently a history of sockpuppetry, and more transparent lying. But by all means let's mentor him for a couple months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floquenbeam Whatever. I'm leaving for a while and I can't really take the high ground because I don't have the time to back up my morality. But we're not priests, we don't assign penitence, and we don't block people for lying, because lying does not itself constitute ongoing disruption to the project that needs prevented. If you have evidence that you're actually preventing something (when they've already agreed to stop the behavior that initiated the report) then block away. If you don't then do what you want, but you and I both know whether you're wrong. TimothyJosephWood 23:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So you don't have the time to look into it, but you're going to tell me I'm wrong anyway... congratulations, that's pretty much the Platonic ideal of an ANI comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been looking into it, and I've been aware of this user and this thread for a while. It just so happens that life takes me places and compels me to do things that don't involve this, and occasionally I don't actually have a choice about the matter. I would otherwise be willing to take on the user as a mentor but I can't. Your petulant flippant attitude on the whole deal isn't particularly helpful besides. Unless you're indeffing them for something other than lying then you are wrong, because indeffing someone for lying isn't protecting the project from any imminent threat. And with that I'll leave it, because I have to go to bed so I can wake up and drive for eight hours to do a whole bunch of shit that I don't want to do. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, I would hasten to add some choice words that a particular editor said to me recently: The life of WP depends on continuing to attract contributors. It's actually the most important thing we need to do here--everything else needed will follow. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All I can say is that I saw this coming a mile away. Anyone who was the least bit familiar with this user could see there were issues with over-reaching into areas the weren't ready for and getting in way over their head, and their immaturity made it more or ess ineitable that they would handle it badly when confronted about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How about we give this kid another chance? Maybe find a mentor, since Timothyjosephwood is unavailable. El_C 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been suggested they appeal in six months. I think that's a really good idea. --NeilN 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You should know I've had to block two of his socks in the last two days, the last one 20 minutes before his latest unblock request on his own talk page. Both socks' unblock requests were really poorly executed continuations of his lying about who is making what edits. Am I that far outside the mainstream? How many people are there around here who share TJW's and ElC's opinion that continual lying, even after you know you've been caught, is not incompatible with working here, and worthy of trying to find a mentor? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. This kid really wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages—let's re-think in six months. El_C 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed. SparklingPessimist 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This, right here, is why ANI is so useless. People who have zero clue, been here a couple months, making stupid comments at ANI thinking they're being somehow useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rude and uncalled for. SparklingPessimist 00:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rude, yes. But someone needs to tell you. For example, you screwed up Black Kite's post below, I had to fix that too. "I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed." is a completely useless, stupid comment. Why did you make it? Did you think it made sense? Or did you think you were funny? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that sometimes happens when I'm editing on my phone and you know what? I don't have to take this from you, I don't care whether you're an administrator or not you don't get to berate other editors. SparklingPessimist 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem cases have to resolved here—cases which can cause good editors to leave if they receive no assistance dealing with disruption. Someone suggesting that a comment was stupid might have a reason and it would be best to reflect on that because derailing serious discussions is very unhelpful. The place to make comments where no one will be rude is WP:TEAHOUSE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to help as a mentor for him. J947 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph

Having already been blocked for disruptive edits and being warned not to make personal attacks, Jayabalan.joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now compared Robert McClenon to a senior SS commander. The user is clearly not hear to do anything other than attempt to promote himself and his work, so can I suggest that his block is extended and talk page access is revoked to prevent further personal attacks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that could just be a cultural misinterpretation. The discussion seems to be progressing quite nicely on their talk, Cordless Larry? Doesn't seem to be much to do here, that's all. — O Fortuna 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion seems to be meeting with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. All the editor seems to want to do is publish and promote his PhD thesis here. Not sure how many ways we can explain that we don't publish original research. --NeilN 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone who has a PhD from a German university comparing editors to Nazis can be considered a "cultural misinterpretation". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

...and even if they were somehow unaware that comparisons with the SS are inappropriate, they had previously be warned that that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him about what needed to be done to his draft. He didn't listen, although perhaps his English is inadequate to support discussion. Their complaint against me appears to be that I told him to stop posting lengthy complaints to my talk page. After he continued posting to my talk page, I hatted the complaints and warned him. I didn't support the MFD to delete the draft, but I cannot condone the deletion of the MFD tag on the draft; they may not know much English, but they apparently know Misplaced Pages well enough to know that deleting a tag is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN has blocked this account for 72 for disruptive editing. I think that this is the appropriate action for now. If disruption continues, we can consider action from there. ~Oshwah~ 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think Jayabalan.joseph is Getting It. When their block expires they're free to advocate against the draft's deletion but if they use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of their thesis again then I will look into blocking them once more. --NeilN 02:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ban

My patience has been exhausted by this editor. I recommend a Site Ban for self-serving disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that considering a site ban is much too soon in this situation and for this user :-) ~Oshwah~ 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Attributing Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to citizens of certain countries

With this edit (diff) Resnjari wrote a comment which includes this part ...people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. With this edit Resnjari attributed Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to population of Serba and Greece. I think it is wrong to do it and kindly explained to Resnjari with this edit (diff). Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and correct it, they removed my comment with explanation written in the edit line: LOL ! Spare me the bullshit. (diff).

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong and if it actually allowed to attribute certain bad outlooks to whole group of people, based on their nationality. But if I am right, I think it would be good that somebody with admin authorities warn editor in question about this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The views expressed can be backed by multiple academic sources, some of which i came by you. He is one example you will be more than familiar with. Kopanski page.192 : "They attempted to overcome the extremely biased trend in the modern Communist and Christian nationalist historiography of Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and Greece related to the history of the Osmanli state and Islamic civilization in the Balkans. Such an effort seems well timed since the Christian, nationalist and Marxist historiographies of the last hundred years have generally portrayed the Osmanli centuries as some kind of 'Dark Ages' of the 'enslaved' Balkan nations. The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam were ignored by the generality of historians who hardly even tried to conceal their anti-Muslim bias. Their ferociously anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish attitude not only obscured and distorted the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam, but also provided an intellectual prop for the ultra nationalist policy of ethnic and religious cleansing in Bosnia, Hum (Herzegovina), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. For against the backdrop of the history of the Balkans, as generally portrayed, what appeared as a kind of historical exoneration and an act of retaliation for the 'betrayal' of Christianity in the Middle Ages." Another by Isa Blumi notes the following p. 32 . "As state policy, post- Ottoman “nations” continue to sever most of their cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional links to the Ottoman period. At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction (Kiel 1990; Riedlmayer 2002). As a result of this strategic removal of the Ottoman past—the expulsion of the “Turks” (i.e., Muslims); the destruction of buildings; the changing of names of towns, families, and monuments; and the “purification” of languages—many in the region have accepted the conclusion that the Ottoman cultural, political, and economic infrastructure was indeed an “occupying,” and thus foreign, entity (Jazexhi 2009). Such logic has powerful intuitive consequences on the way we write about the region’s history: If Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” and thus “foreigners” by default, it becomes necessary to differentiate the indigenous from the alien, a deadly calculation made in the twentieth century with terrifying consequences for millions." On the matter of a "removal" of comments, it was at my talkpag, not the article talkpage. You have on occasion come to my talkpage to impart your advice . On my talkpage i can delete whenever and whatever want. If admins want to follow this up, they know where i am. I can back up my views all of them through peer reviewed scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam + ... the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam. Oh yeah, this is a critical work of academia. No bias at all. I wonder why that might be?. The other source, however; At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction. Rings true. That said, you can back up a lot of things with peer reviewed sources. Now, I don't give a flying toss if you can justify "your views" about entire ethnic populations with peer reviewed academia. How bout you two stick to the topic "Skanderberg" at the article and article talk. It'd be one hell of an achievement if you two could demonstrate that Albanians and Serbians can work with one another. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did stick to Skanderbeg. The editor in question referred to an Albanisation of that figure. How can someone be Albaninised when the very person identified himself as Lord of Albania. The editor was inferred things to prevent editing on something povish and without evidence. Skanderbeg's myth is based on a manipulated and distorted image in which his experience was taken out of historical and religious context, turned into a tool of nation building through secularisation and also to deconstruct and attack Islam in Albania, by claiming Ottoman heritage as bad (i.e Islam). On Kopanski, might not be your view, but you have nothing to discredit the source. In the end the academic has written in a journal that is peer reviewed. The editor came on my talkpage to lecture me as done on occasion and i responded in kind the way i did. On the article talkpage i made no remark that was out of order and that editor could have responded only there. Instead it was followed with the usual commentary on my talkpage. My talkpage, is my domain and i will delete whatever i like.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources you brought do not back up your attribution of Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to contemporary people of Serbian and Greek nationality. They refer to the "state policy" or "historiography" of certain period, "the way we write about the region’s history", "generality of historians".... The issue here are not the sources. Its possible to find sources for every kind of speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of their nationality. That does not mean that such speech has its space on wikipedia. There is also no space for repeated inappropriateness like this (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I would appreciate if you could refrain from attributing any particular ethnicity to me and challenging my ability to work together with other people based on the nationality you attributed to me and them. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources i brought here are but a few. There are many more and contemporary. I brought Kopanski because you are familiar with piece of work when you contributed to the Albanian historiography article. We can go further into this I have all the time in the world. I stand by what i on the article talkpage. Skanderbeg and the construct around him resembles neighbouring nationalistic ideas about the Ottoman era. By the way i include Albanians in the too regarding mass Turkophobia and Islamophobia, as per Schmidt, p. 15 . Oh, yeah i am Albanian by the way.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Should have known the more off-hand joking comment would backfire. It's common knowledge (within the region we are talking about) that Albanian-Serbian relations are strained due to Kosovo. That was more what my comment about Serbs and Albanians working together was about; not necessarily about the two of you specifically. Your name tells me you're against discrimination. In both English (c instead of k) and in SrpskoHrvatski/HrvatskoSrpski (whichever). My apologies if my more off-hand comment was not appreciated. I'll re-iterate the genuine point without generalization; stick to the article topic and don't make general accusations of bigotry at an entire ethnic group. The second point is directed at Resnjarvi; Also at myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well his name being about being against discrimination, much can be said there, anyway jokes aside, scholarship is scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond to both of your comments directed to me here, so as to simplify the threading and reduce the number of comments made. All things considered; both of our ethnic related comments created discomfort. I can't tell whether Antidiskriminator's "Albanization" comment had a similar effect on you. I've been re-reading both comments multiple times and ... I'm not sure that there's a big disagreement between the two of you on article content. Antidiskriminator holds the position that the last period of his life should not take the majority of the article and lede; your position (if I am following correctly) is that there is a mythos about Skanderberg designed to turn people against Islam. I think Antidiskriminator agrees with you on that point; Insisting on his anti-Muslim struggle and neglecting his pro-Muslim pre-1443 life, would be a violation of undue. On content you seem to be on about the same page. I get the point that your comparison isn't meant to be about all Serbs, or all Greeks. It's just that the implication could extend to mean anyone. Presume I'm Greek for a second and you said to me that people in Greece have Islamophobic views. Can you see why that might be offensive to me? The implication being that I am, or my family are, or my friends are, Islamophobes. How do you know, you've never met me, my family, or my friends. I think that's more what perturbed Antidiskriminator, than the historiography of Serbia and Greece. Also, your talkpage isn't actually your "domain" and you can't "delete whatever you like" - WP:UP#CMT. You have greater freedom on your talk page, but, there are restrictions with what you can do. On Kopanski, never heard of the guy, a quick skim told me he'd have biases for Islam. I tend to treat sources with POV's more skeptically than sources that are crafted more carefully and without obvious positions for or against a motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have called my own mother a Islamophobe and Turkophobe to her face due to her disgusting views. So i have been in pricklier situations than this. Anyway the point i am making to him was Skanderbeg or the mythmaking around him is based on something else (communist period and the wackiness of the regime for other motives i.e social engineering which is clear) and not Albanisation. To claim Albanisation, especially Anti who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg is a little bit out there becuase it infers that Skanderbeg was not Albanian in anyway to begin with (these views still exist in some Serb and Greek circles) considering that Kastrioti called himself lord of Albania etc. He is aware. If he is going to say to other editors that certain bits info or alterations should not be done, at least when making a grandiose claim of Albanisation have some kind of backing. On sources, Anti came across Kopanski, i merely followed his actions in my use much later.Resnjari (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised, Resnjari? Back then, in the Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you have accused the editors of Misplaced Pages for being Islamophobe because they didn't share your Islamist views, where you demonize the Christians and victimize the Muslims. This was evident by your personal portrayal of a certain Muslim ethnic group as "victims of Christian Greeks" for being expelled after WWII due to their collaboration with the Nazis. This is what you implied when I opposed your personal portrayal of the Greeks as "ethnic cleansers of Muslim Cham Albanians":

** "My approach is objective unlike yours which is based on reasons of “traitorous actions”. Like I said show me peer reviewed scholarship that states that using the term ethnic cleansing is wrong. As for the comparison with the Armenian Genocide it does suffice. It does not matter about the numbers. Both populations where not liked by other peoples that they lived amongst, they had people who collaborated with incoming armies and that was used as justification for the populations demise. The only difference is that Armenians are Christians and Albanian Chams are Muslims. So when peer reviewed scholarship states that those events for Christian Armenians is ethnic cleansing its ok to cite, but when it’s for Muslim Albanian Chams it’s a different standard even though peer reviewed literature cites that too. If you want to report me, then please do so.Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC) " **

Just this is wrong of your part, Resnjari. To suggest that the Misplaced Pages's community is racist towards Muslims, so is to disparage their skills and contributions to the Wiki project. Very wrong approach, and not befitting you an editor as well. And certainly it is a not so objective approach as you might think. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that Misplaced Pages editors are Turkophobic or Islamophobic on Muslims. My comments which you have cut and paste were part of a larger discussion on sources. Those sentiments are however very common in the Balkans due to state nationalism in many countries starting with Albania poisoned by that thinking. I have been told at length, lectured by Albanian editors that i should not edit or contribute to Islam related articles on Albania because it is the wrong thing to do on my talkpage  ! Should i have reported them due to their colourful language? So you know i am very cynical. Also you said i have "Islamist" views ? Now isn't that pushing it. You are aware of what a Islamist is right ? There are many observant Muslims on Misplaced Pages, who some would even find discussing the faith critically very offensive, yet still that does not make them an Islamist. I don't observe Islam. My mother converted as a Jehovah's Witness when i was a little kid, forced me along for the ride, so i know a lot of bible and little Quran and she still is a Christian fanatic with crazy views of which i have encountered among many, many Balkan people about Islam and i don't share them. Knowledge and yes Western scholarship opened my eyes about Islam and i don't share those alternative views even if now they are the norm in many parts of the Balkans. Now the matter is with Anti. If you got some additional issue with me start a new topic in here.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very aware of the difference between Muslim views and Islamist views. The Muslims and the Islamists are not even one and the same thing. Which you probably know already. Your cynical views unfortunately I can't say they do differ from Islamist ones which hold the belief that they are victims of a Christian hostility/discrimination towards them. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So then your aware. If i were an Islamist i would already be trying to convert you to Islam. That has not happened and nor will it. Those that have heritage should keep it. In the Balkans the order of the day has been those with Muslim heritage should discard it. Albania is prime example number one in this regard and the myth of Skanderbeg is central to that campaign dating from the communist era. Muslims in the Balkans have experienced mass discrimination and violence from Christian states and peoples and vice versa and they experienced it because of their faith. It has not been a one way ticket or the sole experience of the latter by the former as nationalist literature and rhetoric often refers too.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please. I am not interested to listen to theories, nor I care about your opinions as they cannot justify editorial bias. Your edits are fundamentally biased in an anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction, and, hiding yourself behind historical or religious reasons is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor. Please stick to the discussion: your behavior is questioned here, not your opinions. Attributing Islamophobic, Albanophobic or Turcophobic outlooks to the editors in Misplaced Pages and the people in certain countries goes against the Misplaced Pages's editorial standards and is a form of disruption, which shows a lack of competence of your part and this behavior is unacceptable. I have warned you in the past about this, but the fact that more editors are now still reporting the same problem in their encounters with you, shows that you are failing to realize the extend of the problem. You are admitting your religious bias but at same time you are showing an unwillingness in remedying for this, which is not good. A topic-wide ban on Balkan articles is usually a preventative measure to protect these articles from incompetent editors who are failing to gasp the problem of religious bias in their edits. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your views about a "anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction". Wikpedia is about facts, not what feels good about something and omitting the bad stuff. Its an encyclopedia, not a blogging forum. Also the same charge can be made (if one uses your criteria) on the opposite end such as in that citation of yours from a exchange in Cham Albanian related topics. For example your comment about the Chams "traitorous actions" and wanting not to include peer reviewed scholarship. Anti-Albanian bias? Or were you admitting to an anti-Albanian bias ? A topic wide ban on Cham related articles or Balkan ones for that matter regarding you? As i have said on English Misplaced Pages and even on Albanian Misplaced Pages, if you don't like my editing, bad luck. Scholarship is scholarship, and all the ones i use i make sure they are wp:secondary, wp:reliable and from the Western World to for those claiming "biases". I am currently editing Islam related topics on Albania because one i have done background reading and two it is a core area in that Misplaced Pages project. The country is a majority identifying Muslim nation after all. Unless you can find some issue with a source or something i have edited within one of those articles (nothing presented), its more of the same wp:idontlikeit view on your part. By the way i have not said that editors on Misplaced Pages are Turkophobic or Islamophobic. Don't distort my words. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You are attributing Albanophobia to me. Don't you see? You are presenting the Cham treason and siding with the Nazis against the Greek state as being "my anti-Albanian bias" and not a historical event of WWII. Prespari, as an editor, you have done very very little to remain neutral in your attribution of biased Peer viewed sources against Serbians and Greeks, which shows editorial bias of your part. And to justify this bias, you are hiding behind the argument of citing peer-viewed sources. Bias in sources does not mean you can be a biased editor, Prespari. It's your failure to present scholarly opinions (opinions are not facts) of Greeks committing Ethnic cleansing against Albanians as just that: opinions. You are refusing to present them in an unbiased manner and you are hiding yourself behind your argument "I am just quoting peer-viewed sources". This is not far from saying "I was just following orders." You chose to pick and use the most biased of the available peer-viewed sources and to present them as being facts, using the reliability of the sources as your flag against their paraphrasing or summarization in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary. What do you expect from me to do with this form of disruption? To approve it? Misplaced Pages tried to warn you over citing and attributing sources: being reliable does not make that source neutral. Your insistence that the reliability = same as = neutrality and that the opinions = same as = facts, shows editorial bias. To insist on your bias despite our warnings, is to cause disruption. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No one said Albanophobia toward you. Using your line of argument. On ethnic cleansing, i.e Baltsiotis, a Greek scholar. Anyway on "neutral vocabulary", your one to talk, please. Once again the words "Cham treason" says it all. No even the scholarship goes there.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not again!!! Weren't the 15 million who were killed when the Third Balkan War turned into World War One enough blood to satisfy any desire to shed more blood over the Balkans? Can't some administrator topic-ban these Balkan fighters?!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree on the war matter. Idiocy being a cause. Various propaganda of pursuing a "greater" this or a "greater" that with various state building ideologies of othering peoples among other things in the region led to Balkans Wars which morphed into World War One. Topic banning should be based on something substantive. Not a dislike of an editor. On "Balkan fighters", the issue was on Skanderbeg and a matter Silent was not involved in. Silent came here to make her own commentary here, i responded in kind. This is an ANI forum, and i have a right of reply. Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, do you mean Second Balkan War (1913). The third one is the Yugoslav Civil War of 1991/2-95 (1991-2001 as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned). To answer your question though, evidently not given that another million were killed in WW2 and then more than 100,000 is the Yugo Wars. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude - I was using an unconventional numbering, in counting a war, WWI, that isn't normally counted as a Balkan War. Was it only a million killed in the Balkans (out of a total of tens of millions) in WWII? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, don't jump immediately to topic ban. The Third Balkan War (according to your "unconventional numbers") belongs to the past and all editors should not confuse history with the actual discussion here. The region has a recent bloody history and for that reason editors from there and the disputes between them should be treated with patience. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Ah, okay, yes if you count WW1 as the Third Balkan War then yes that makes sense. I was thinking of Yugoslavia specifically which accounts for at least 1 million dead (conservative estimate), but, I've seen values up to 2 million. Add Greece, Romania (some call Romania a Balkan state, others dont), Bulgaria and Albania to it and you can easily add another 1 million in the balkans. So between 2-3 million. The greatest losses were in Russia and China with around 24 million and 18 million a piece and then that's followed by Poland who lost something around 20% of their population which I think is around 6-7 million. Germany also suffered heavy losses but mostly military deaths - maybe 4 million military and 1-2 million civilian. All in all that makes up 52-54 million losses in these four countries alone. World War II casualties has a table with approximate numbers totaling around 70-85 million. There's also this infographic on youtube which I really like (18 minutes). The thing with the Balkans is that they were easily overrun by the joint operations of the Wehrmacht and Italian army. Yugoslavia didn't even make it two weeks before being completely occupied - though the government went into exile and resistance movements were active throughout the duration of the war. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes that too, all of it. The rationale for conflicts in othering peoples based on faith ethnicity and others things is a common occurrence. State social engineering played a large role in this in mobilsing and making people ready to act. Historiography played a big part. Scholarship from the West notes that those histriographies are still mainly the same in most countries in the Balkans with no change after all that. Sentiments of othering need not be overt for them to exist among citizens for a state to use when it wants. The myth of Skanderbeg is a case in point, though the communist regime never got a chance to employ it in war. But they sure made life hell for its citizens using it from the 1960s onward in their social engineering campaigns.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, frankly, I was not a witness of the incident between Resnjari and Antidiskriminator, but I wasn't surprised to find this report on ANI. I have seen Antidiskriminator's quality work in Misplaced Pages. He is a cooperative user with long history of positive edits in the Balkan topics, whose work is widely acknowledged by the editorial community and whose records show no disruption whatsover. Antidiskriminator's contributions resulted in Balkan articles being improved or even gaining a GA status, which shows this user's tireless efforts in promoting Misplaced Pages's quality. I do not think it is ever appropriate to ask for him to be topic-banned for reporting here another editor's problematic behavior. To do so, is to discourage the Wiki editors from ever reporting on ANI any similar incidents in the future. Which I am very certain is not in our interests, Robert. To ban Antidiskriminator for reporting an evident problem of religious or ethnic bias of Resnjari's part in certain Balkan articles, is to encourage certain editors do not heel to our warnings over their bias. The fact that Resnjari was involved in more incidents, is just an indicator of our failure. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that is not entirely right there. Antidiskrimintor has been banned before for problematic editing , , . Another thing is Anti has had me in his sights way before i even interacted with him , that link can be found on his main page under "Interesting coincedences:". Odd that.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Silentresident. You did not witness a incident. So then why are you here commenting ? On "bias", i never said that Anti had a bias. He referred to Albanianisation and in an attempt to prevent edits and i reminded him of what the figure of Skanderbeg had been refashioned by the Albanian state, and in a similar fashion to sentiments out there in the Balkans. He commented on my talkpage and i deleted him as its MY talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Realtalk: this guy is trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist. I think it's time for him to, at the very least, be topic banned from any article related to the Balkans. Jtrainor (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari is not "trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist". The discussion and decisions should be based on a full understanding of the situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say people are racist, i said those views are very common in the Balkans, and yes even among my people for multiple sociopoltical reasons which involve the state itself imparting upon the people those things through social engineering, i.e see Albanian nationalism, Albanian historiography, Serbian historiography etc etc. Otherwise the Balkans would be a very peaceful place which it has NOT been. And this is recent times too. Also the historiographries of a large number of places in the Balkans is very problematic. As for other editors here, Yyu may not have encountered views which ifered to in the Balkans as you might not be from there. My original reference in the article talkpage was to this as the editor himself referred to Albanisation in an attempt to prevent edits, when he himself who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg knows otherwise. Antidiskriminator here has made multiple past comments on my talkpage , that he will take me i ANI on my talkpage when i noted to other editors (separate to him) the problems of using Serbian historiography due to nationalism and hence POV, of which he uses extensively. Apparently its ok for him to note issues with using Albanian historiography of which i acknowledge and support (i don't use the stuff) but the reverse is apparently not on for Serbian historiography. Also why a topic ban for me? What has been the problem with my editing ? Can someone please show something substantive here with my editing. Otherwise this is resembling more of along the lines of wp:witchhunt and wp:hounding.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari,

• if I am responsible for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, I am deeply and most sincerely sorry.
• I am also sorry if I don't share your opinion that works are unreliable on the basis of the (wrong) nationality of their authors.
• I am also sorry because of the Albanisation of Skanderbeg which transformed medieval tribal chieftain (who is responsible for death of more than million Albanian civillians and soldiers in the Ottoman and rebel units) into Albanian nationalist hero. I can assure that I never participated in such absurd irrational manipulation.
• Let us not lie ourselves Resnjari. If after three days after the initial report you are allowed to blame the other editors for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, its obviuos that you will not be warned and that such attacks are allowed and tolerated. I am sorry for that, but thats life. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On "lies", thank you for pointing that part of the article out. All those sources used there do not use the word Albanianisation, so i am guessing that is a original research take on it. That POV subheading is in need of alteration. The National Awakening Rilindja period did not take a figure who himself used the title Lord of Albania and make him "Albanian". Like i said use a source that states the word Albanianisation here. Albanianisation, on its own carries very POVish connotations. I made my point on the Rilindja period and beyond. Skanderbeg was nationalised and secularised for state engineering processes. By nationalised his fight was interpreted to be one that dominated the country (which was wrong) and that his struggle was one of a "hero" that all Albanians backed (wrong again). As Kopanski noted he was a warlord at best fighting from a small area to restore his fathers lands and his own interests, not some national one. Many Albanians fought against this individual for the Ottomans. That is the part that takes this person out of his historical context and manipulated for others. It was not his Albanian identity that was utilised or invented (if we used the term "Albanianisation" which i take you mean here), but his fight against the Ottomans embellished with fabrications and transfixed by the communists to fight religion in particular Islam, viewed as the religion of the "invader". As for who dies and so on about the medaevil period, the numbers who knows. Its this obsession of the modern day period with Skanderbeg that is problematic and who did not shape the Albanian experience, but the Ottomans. Their arrival allowed Albanians to become Albanians as we know them today speaking Albanian and being of a religion different to their neighbours preventing assimilation. Its this experience in which the communists attempted to wipe out through nationalism and things like the myth of Skanderbeg. As for blame you have been at it on my talkpage many times now. Maybe i should have lodged ANI reports against you with those colourful comments but unlike you i cannot be bothered.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To argue that these racist views are "very common", is an attempt to justify your editorial bias against these people and countries, Prespari. Which is no different from calling the commonsfolk "racists" and hiding your racism behind this argument. You are crossing some dangerous red lines here. This has no place in Misplaced Pages. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I shall note that Resnjari's disruptions are not limited to racist bias only, but also extend to 3RR breaches and POV Tag-abuses, this time in the balkan topic article Albania, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=773385589&oldid=773354922

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=773406406&oldid=773398621

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=773410810&oldid=773410545

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=773578486&oldid=773477463

In that incident, which happened earlier this month, at 2 April, Resnjari attempted to impose his POV on the article by using the POV tags as a trojan horse to achieve his goals. Despite not having any consensus (he tried to explain the necessity for POV Tags in Talk:Albania, but he failed to convince; several other editors, besides me, opposed him but he couldn't listen to us and he reverted them when he didn't get the things done the way he wanted). This disruption happened at a moment at which Resnjari fully acknowledges that the article falls under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The 3rr rule relates to undoing someones edits 3 times. In your "evidence" the first edit i made i added the tags. The next two which are dated April the 12th i undid 2 edits. The 4th edit relates to April the 13th, Your breach is where ? I also noted extensive issues with the map of which other editors admitted to and its all in the talkpage. Anyway you attempted one of these 3rr things with me a while back on my talk page, not realising the count . You really must want me to get banned Silent.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to ban you, what I want is an end to this racist bias on Balkan articles, Resnjari. But like Jtrainor does, all I see here is you defending your actions as if there is nothing wrong about portraying the people of these countries as racist.--SILENTRESIDENT 06:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"racist bias"? How so ? If anything most of my editing has focused on the negative regarding Albanian issues as opposed to the positive, in articles that relate to the Islamization of Albania or recently the Albanian nationalism one, i go where the scholarship takes me. Are you saying then that i am racist toward Albanians, considering i am one of them? As for your evidence, make sure it actually breaks rules when you present it.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On this issue, Antidiskrimantor threw the term Albanianisation out there, though not offensive to you or maybe others it is to Albanians, due to how it has been used in the Balkans. As much as there is stuff concocted and fabricated about Skanderbeg, the Albanianised part is not it. Saying that without some kind of scholarly backing is very POVish and provocative, especially when it is used as a means to prevent possible editing in a article. If the perception is by some that i overacted, then i apologise, but there should be awareness both ways. Also my talkpage is my domain and not to be used as some editors having been doing to make intimidating attempts at this or that or even telling me (in problematic language and that is putting it nicely) not to edit because my editing violates some "national honour", especially which annoyed me even though i kept my cool. I have let a lot of things pass from many editors over the years, a lot and that shows with my clean record. I don't trash talk your talkpages and i expect the same standard for mine. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For removal of comments, notices, and warnings from User Talk Pages, please see WP: User Pages (Removal of comments, notices, and warnings). --SILENTRESIDENT 09:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ok fine about notices and stuff. Anti has posted on my talkpage in previous times regarding wanting to take me to ANI (big difference) because to paraphrase him i was "inhibiting his work" due to me discussing (not editing, but discussing) with another editor the problematic issues of Serbian sources. Should i interpret that type of past commentary as intimidation or a threat (for future reference) ? Its ok though when Albanian sources are discussed in that way however. Its stuff like that , . On my talkpage, no thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator has placed accuses on my talk too. I have deleted them and it is not wrong if others do the same when they think there is a good reason. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You too. Well not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:EthnicKekistan

The name and contribution history of EthnicKekistan (talk · contribs), I'm mighty suspicious of this new editor's intentions. Am I being overly sensitive here? --Calton | Talk 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the username and the focus on alt-right groups is not the best start for a new editor, but so far their editing seems okay. I've notified them of DS. Another admin might well consider their username disruptive but I'm inclined to just keep an eye on them for the minute. GoldenRing (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see blocking the name outright, but I could see an WP:RFC/N concluding that an identitarian username based on what is basically the biggest troll's nest on the internet is not conducive to harmonious editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

He's here to promote an alt-right movement he seems to be a part of: . He created the article and began adding the groups name to any and every page mentioning "white nationalism": . 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My username was intended as a joke, not as an expression of white supremacism or to cause disruption. I'm a civic nationalist. EthnicKekistan (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (ec) The article isn't FA-material, but it certainly isn't the worst article I've seen on Misplaced Pages. The subject is notable by GNG standards and the article is reasonably neutral. Nowhere close to promoting "an alt-right movement he seems to be a part of". Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit more neutral now. I am not convinced the joint is notable, but an AfD should decide on that. Not every club that stickers on a few campuses passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'm going to go ahead and open that RFC/N. The name essentially means "a nation only for white people" and however it was intended that's a really poor choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Please add any comments about the username there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

• Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steven Goldstein (civil rights activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a flurry of edits by what appear to be involved editors at both of these articles, the Anne Frank article and the article on its director. Both can use administrator attention. Note this edit containing a borderline legal threat. I saw this article referenced off-wiki so there may be further such activity. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• There's more than a little promotional language in those articles. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd say the legal threat is more than borderline; "hostile and actionable changes to our Misplaced Pages page" strikes me as more than a little intimidatory--at the very least, there are significant WP:OWN and WP:COI issues here. Snow 06:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree on both points. What I saw offline indicated that people hostile to the center inserted some material, which was then removed by the center staff. The center staff has definitely, openly edited the article on the center itself (I haven't examined the Goldstein article just yet). Frankly the sourcing of the article is totally inadequate at present, consisting almost entirely of links to its website, and that may be a result of edits by the staff. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between James Cantor and Sceptre

I propose that some type of WP:IBAN be enacted between James Cantor and Sceptre. Why? Because any time there is an interaction between them, it is toxic or highly toxic and pollutes any chance of a collegial editing environment. In fact, their interactions remind me of the interactions that Jokestress (Andrea James) had with Cantor. Ultimately, in 2013, that matter was taken to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology (a case I participated in), and Jokestress was topic-banned. Granted, Jokestress being taken to Arbitration was for more than just her hostility toward Cantor. She said bye and has not edited Misplaced Pages since, at least under the Jokestress account. I feel that when it comes to monitoring and attacking Cantor, Sceptre has taken the place of Jokestress. See this 2015 case, which resulted in this block, for the most egregious example. There was also this Arbitration request. One would think that after those 2015 matters, Sceptre would know to stay away from Cantor. After recently seeing Cantor in a dispute with an editor at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article, an article that is on my watchlist, I wondered if Sceptre would show up there. I figured that wouldn't happen, though, given the 2015 matters. But the fact that it did happen, and has also turned into an attack case, is why I am here now. Except for this ANI report, I have so far refrained from weighing in on that latest dispute.

Look, passion is good to have on Misplaced Pages. I understand Sceptre's passion. I understand Cantor's passion. But we have rules that we are supposed to follow. And, as the WP:Advocacy essay/info page explains, advocacy is not supposed to get in the way of those rules. Will some administrators look into this matter? I don't think that Sceptre is the right person to be reverting Cantor or conversing with Cantor about transgender issues. Like Jokestress, I don't think that Sceptre has any self-restraint when it comes to being hostile toward Cantor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I think the dispute would be better served with a formal topic ban on Cantor to enforce the laughingly meaningless pledge he made on his talk page nearly a decade ago. Cantor has a history of pushing fringe theories and COI editing over the past ten years on this subject, including prior meatpuppetry, disguised with the excuse that he is apparently "an expert", while simultaneously to delete or otherwise denigrate reliable sources that contradict the cottage industry that he is a part of. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I support a IBan between the 2 (or 3 if necessary). L3X1 (distant write) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe Flyer22 is correct. I can and do interact with people I disagree with all the time, but Sceptre continues to be unable/unwilling to address content rather than attacking me. There is little that can be done with an editor who uses because-it-comes-from-Cantor as sufficient reason to revert and when asked to produce a WP-valid reason simply repeats their POV "The real dispute is that Cantor and his ilk have been pushing the same unscientific bullshit for the past thirty years" (etc.). As Sceptre has said specifically about me before: “I don't want him to contribute at all in the subject area. He should've been topic banned in Sexology and it's one of ArbCom's greatest mistakes that he wasn't”, telling me that "you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it." Very clearly, Sceptre has decided to enact what she thinks ArbCom should have.

In case it is relevant, I believe these pages remain under discretionary sanctions after the Sexology case.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

James, you are inflexible, demanding your version and only your version. I found previous encounters with in in these areas to be fruitless as shown in this thread where your goal was to eliminate me from editing a specific article simply because you wanted it say only what you wanted it to say, and be turned into an advocacy puff piece to advance your agenda. I think arbcom got it wrong by not topic banning you from these areas.--MONGO 22:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot say anything about that case that won't be immediately obvious to anyone who wants to read it: The case shows exactly the opposite of what Mongo says it does. In fact, it serves as quite a good example: When science says something that some activists dislike, activists of whichever extreme attempt to discredit the scientist with whatever vague claims, but the requests for actual evidence, RS's, diffs, or whatever, remain unmet.— James Cantor (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to reread my linked thread. I even suggested you do a spinoff (and I do not support POVFORKS)...but nothing offered was good enough. You just wanted the article turned into a platform to promote your POV.--MONGO 23:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether editors choose to do anything about the James Cantor and Sceptre interaction now or ignore it, I guarantee that this matter will be back here, or rather at WP:AN, in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is a problem that Sceptre would revert edits made by James Cantor apparently on the sole basis that he made them, as here for example, where the edit summary was, "rv removal of content from someone with self-admitted conflict of interest". More emphasis should be given to the quality of the edits, and the question of whether they improve the article, than on who made them. Sceptre should be encouraged not to make edits that make it look as though they are pursuing some personal conflict with Cantor, and if they cannot follow that advice, then maybe an interaction ban would be justified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Raheja Developers

There have been long-term issues of COI editing at Raheja Developers and, apparently, a recent OTRS request. The latest TLDR screed from an account that is almost certainly connected to the company is at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs. I really don't know what to do and, since they seem to be accusing me (falsely) of trying to extort money from them, it is apparently getting serious. FWIW, I have barely edited the article in its current form - Leoaugust (talk · contribs), who has a declared COI, and Jytdog (talk · contribs) were the main drivers. My gut feeling has long been that the article is too slanted towards bad things connected to the company but, equally, the good things were mostly promotional in nature.

I would appreciate some eyes on this. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

zowie. screed is an understatement. I confirm that the article has been a COI nightmare. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been actively involved in the editing, and I stand by every word. There are literally hundreds of cases against the builder, but so far Rahejas have largely been able to manage the news media. For example, the newspaper "Hindustan Times" that Raheja quotes, owns at least 3 apartments in Raheja projects https://twitter.com/gurgaonscoop/status/846963608173101059; so to expect any coverage of the major issues is out of question. The current Wikipage page mentions issues which are widely known, and despite all efforts of Raheja to prevent it, have found way into the media. And both "good" & "bad" things have found their way on the page, though not comprehensively as it could be.

Further, the arguments made by Raheja developer at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs have been submitted in various Gurgaon and Delhi Courts. They have not met any success for the last 2 years, and hence as a desperate measure have reached out to New York. They have been personally trying to twist arms of Misplaced Pages in Bengaluru, India since last 1.5 years (even filed cases against Misplaced Pages), but have so far had no success. I will try to provide a point by point rebuttal of the "clarification" issued by Raheja, if necessary in taking this issue further.

To me the lasting impression of their clarification is the Raheja claim " Hence, it is essential to provide the company either with the password or the edit rights as the page belongs to them." .... they actually said "as the page BELONGS to them (Raheja)." Their claim that the Misplaced Pages Page belongs to Raheja Developers in a notice to Misplaced Pages, hopefully vetted by Raheja's legal team, shows how they are making all these "clarifications" without the basic understanding of whom Misplaced Pages belongs to, and without application of their minds. For them, this is just an effort to censor and suppress information that might not align with their marketing messages to entrap more buyers. -Leoaugust (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going out, but it's certainly clear that User:Zair.nik needs an indefinite block, and I've obliged. I don't imagine I've solved the problems thereby, though, as it's merely a flyby account (one edit). Bishonen | talk 10:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

• Bish blocked, someone else turned up in the place of the blocked account (I am past AGF on this thing, sorry). At least three admins have fiddled about with stuff on the talk page (technical term), and hopefully some may now have it on their watchlist. I remain rather unhappy with the article but that's for another day - perhaps things really are as bad as it suggests. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi'd the talkpage for a couple of days. I hesitate whether to block the new Raheja representative, considering their post on your page, Sitush. I'll sleep on it. What's your opinion? Bishonen | talk 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

• I didn't realise they had posted on my talk, sorry. I, too, will sleep on it - I'm fed up of sock chasing anyway. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric just gave the article a serious trim. Much more solid now. Kudos to them. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of interest to regulars

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_-_is_it_really_always_necessary.3F --NeilN 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've quit entirely until this is resolved, as I don't want to be a catalyst. L3X1 (distant write) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) TLDR is make sure you wait at least 24 hours after last comment befor atop/abot and then another 24 before 1clickArchiving. Also, if it looks like more discussion will come, better to wait than deter people who don't know that closures can always be ignored/reversed. Short stuff that is  Done or Resolved can be closed before waiting 24 hours, but still wait for archive. Consider EthniKekistan up above, while there hasn't been any comment for some time, the off page discussion is continued, so it shouldn't be closed yet. I'm surprised Oshwah didn't comment, he had been making a lot of quick closures recently L3X1 (distant write) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Misplaced Pages policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The long discussion is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.

When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Misplaced Pages policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.

You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Misplaced Pages policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy.

Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Misplaced Pages allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Misplaced Pages for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.

"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!

"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Misplaced Pages policy.

The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.

I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Misplaced Pages. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Misplaced Pages, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reporting Mrollie

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

Mrwiki72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe there are people in the system who resort to what is well known as Wikihounding. When you look at user named "MrOllie", it is quite evident this is a case of Wikihounding. Multiple attempts to come to a dispute resolution are not being heeded to. I may be forced to stop contributing as a result.

Please see his recent history, and my attempt to communicate below; he has gone after unrelated edits and showed intent to be vindictive (even if he may be right). If this is not a case of wikihounding, what is ?

Wikihounding Please do not resort to Wikihounding, as you have clearly demonstrated going after multiple unrelated edits. If an edit war is in progress and consensus is unclear, forming a discussion, whether between two users or an entire group is strongly encouraged. Any discussions aimed at coming to a peaceful resolution or some other compromise are highly recommended. Wikihounding Main page: WP:Wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) We allow everyone to look at contributions lists. One reason for that is to check if a similar mistake is being repeated on other articles - in this case yes. That is not 'Wikihounding'. Still, if you think I did something inappropriate the place to report that is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I strongly recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before opening a discussion there, though. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I do not have time to continue an edit war, but you have clearly demonstrated your willingness. Your actions are fully known to you, and therefore you decide if you are doing the right thing. Introspect ! I am a subject matter expert, and an acknowledged one at that, and have demonstrated that through the links. Even if you have a problem with the links, I have ceded, and requested removal of the links (which is contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia where you substantiate through links). But the content edit was justified. But your actions have shown your true intent, which is to wear down new contributors until you win unfairly; so be it. I will report you as that is the right and fair thing to do. Upto Misplaced Pages what they want to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• You are required to properly inform the user you are reporting to AN/I.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is confusing. More care should have been taken to draft more coherent report. El_C 17:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

He's editing the wikipage Open_Innovation and he's trying to add in something from a website that fails WP:RS the site shows no oversight at all and Mr.Ollie is correctly removing that addition. Looks like Mrwiki72 isn't happy with it. I also note that Mr.Ollie is advising him to declare his COI which is also proper. Mr. Ollie isn't wikihounding MrWiki72 at all.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• It does look like mrwiki72 is a single-purpose account whose only focus is adding content related to a particualr website, strongly suggesting a conflict of interest. Both parties need to disengage from edit warring as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My intent with linking was to re-inforce the content with attribution / references; having said that, I have offered to remove links as well if that is causing this whole issue. Yet, it keeps getting deleted. Mrwiki72 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)mrwiki72

GregJackP

GregJackP said "Also, just to let you know, at 2:00 PM tomorrow (local time), I'll revert the last change back to the long-term version, and I'll continue to do so until you get consensus to remove the material." It appears they will continue to revert. Past reverts. I believe they will continue to revert. Something has got to change. I personally disagree with restoring all the sources. The current text uses more reliable sources. I don't want to wait until 2:00 PM tomorrow (Misplaced Pages time) for the next round of reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hm - the history isn't very edifying there. I've fully protected the article for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• This material was included by consensus following a series of discussions in 2015. It's not edifying because last time the discussion was held in about 5 different locations because JYTDog was forum shopping. I also find it curious that QuackGuru shows up to an article that he's never edited, nor has he shown a great deal of interest in legal articles, until JYTDog was reverted from his arbitrary changes from what the consensus had been. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that an aspersion that someone is a sock of somebody else? L3X1 (distant write) 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I do not think that QG is anyone's sock. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You know Black Kite, QuackGuru, I had this under control. El_C 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I know the feeling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How so? El_C 01:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I've stepped on your toes - feel free to unprotect it if you think it'll be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is more. Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You still shouldn't be shopping for admins. El_C 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C is to be commended for approaching this with dialog, as should be the norm. Once we have to protect page or block someone, things have gotten seriously screwed up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

After being warned by an admin about using a problematic source they started a RfC using the problematic source. More than one editor opposed using Infowars, but GregJackP is not listening. QuackGuru (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is, mercifully, up. I suggest you approach it without prejudice. El_C 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than collaborate GregJackP has guaranteed the long-version will not be restored any time soon. Proposing to restore text that is not supported by the source was the last straw. It can be closed as a snow oppose within 24 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are nine votes to remove and five votes to retain, as of now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. El_C 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. They claimed "There are no BLP issues." It can be shut down now per this. A serious discussion requires a serious proposal. The current proposal is not it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The revised RfC is now up. El_C 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

After requesting verification for a part of the text more than one editor refused to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I propose the RfC be immediately closed per this and previous concerns. If an IP made the same edit as the proposal to the article they would probably be warned for unconstructive editing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Damaging behavior (edit summaries/article content) at euphoria

Hello administrators and fellow editors. The following concerns actions by user:Seppi333 at euphoria.

Reading these edit summaries I ask, why should I be involved with Misplaced Pages?

• please use refs that don't suck ass to rewrite this section. otherwise, delete it
• is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. ... stop citing 'shit refs'
• this is what happens when you don't use a drug monograph like https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+58-08-2 - you get retarded contradictions

This language is hurtful in itself and humiliating to me when seen by other editors. Technically focusing on content, it is a clever way of being obnoxiously insulting. Now Seppi333 is an asset to Misplaced Pages; he is a learned first rate editor and I, a very human one; but regardless of the validity of his contentions no one should be treated this way. I resist urges to be provoked or become resigned. Because I have been on the receiving end of f***ing (his wording) comments from Seppi333 before, I appeal to you. I don't want to interact with him.

But this isn't just about me. While this was happening he actually modified the article to read : "The widely consumed stimulant caffeine is a euphoriant at higher (than typical) dosages, which does not produce euphoria." Seppi333 created this intentionally absurd sentence, then made another edit, adding the dual contradictory tags in a single sentence, to make his point, without concern for confusing readers or damaging the reputation of Misplaced Pages. That needlessly hurts everybody.

Thank you my friends for your consideration. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• NPA and civil, as usual being ignored by established users who aren't afraid of boomerang. L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: None of these are ad hominem (personal attacks); they're comments on the references that were cited. They're crude because I'm expressing my exasperation and annoyance at constantly having to enforce WP:MEDRS given the countless times I've pointed this policy out to you since we first started collaborating on the amphetamine article around one or two years ago. I acknowledge that my decision to write an apparently contradictory statement into the article wasn't in accordance with content policies; this was a poor decision on my part and I apologize for that. I'm not perfect, and like all humans, when I'm irritated I'm subject to petty emotional responses which I may sometimes be unable to inhibit.
I'm frankly getting fed up with constantly having to delete content and/or references in that article when you know very well what sources are and are not acceptable for citing medical claims. If you simply used reliable medical sources in the first place, disputes like this would not occur. If you continue to ignore that policy going forward, it's pretty likely that another dispute will arise in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They may not be personal attacks, but the comments are highly uncivil and not appropriate on a collaborative project. There are other ways to point out sources are not adequate. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I have tried other ways; they don't seem to work. In the future, I'll likely just seek assistance from other edits at WT:MED in order to deal with content/reference issues introduced by Box73 instead of engage with him directly. Subsequent to my last edit on that page, I was already planning on doing this prior to this discussion because I feel that I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. This course of action hopefully will reduce or prevent the potential for any issues with his or my behavior in our future interactions. This is the best solution that I can think of at the moment in regard to addressing his concerns.
All Box73 really needs to do to address my concerns is acknowledge that he will cite better references and follow through on that. As of now, he has not done so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've followed through on what I've stated I will do here: WT:MED#Euphoria needs more eyes. Should any future problems arise with Box73's medical content contributions, I will explain to other medical editors the issues that I see with new content on that talk page, then let those editors engage with Box73 and edit his work as they deem appropriate. If anyone has a better idea about how I should deal with Box73 in the future in order to avoid behavioral problems like this while attempting to address issues with his contributions, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious advice that if you find yourself this worked up about something on the internet, you should step away from the keyboard before using offensive edit summaries, I'd say that if an editor is chronically incapable of or unwilling to follow MEDRS, they should be topic banned from editing medical articles. Box73, telling other editors to tag your poorly cited additions instead of removing them isn't acceptable. Poorly cited medical edits will be removed on sight. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Abusive image usage

Wondering if an administrator could possibly add File:Tronald Dump.svg to the Misplaced Pages:Image blacklist; edits like this, including it in templates, will cause it to appear on a large amount of articles. Home Lander (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This also appears at File:Tronald Dump.jpg; the only proper use is at Hanksy. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: The JPG version above does not appear to be blacklisted. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: Correct, and a link to that version is present on the now blacklisted copy, so it probably should be included as well. Home Lander (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Shouldn't Kona Lanes be protected? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

TFAs are generally not preemptively edit protected. It looks like there was a brief spat of rapid-fire vandalism, but nothing in the last half-hour, and nothing unmanageable. If vandalism rates become extreme and/or unproductive edits start to go unreverted for long periods, feel free to request protection at RFPP. Congrats on the feature! – Juliancolton |  04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Juliancolton!

In response, I would note only that this is hardly aberrant; while we certainly want to encourage constructive editing, what's the destructive/constructive ratio of TFA, historically? Ten to one? 20 to one? 200 to one? What would semiprotection (Autoconfirmed? Extended confirmed?) hurt, exactly? —ATS 🖖 talk 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ATS: This is a perennial proposal; anyone can edit Misplaced Pages and they should be able to do so for the most prominently linked article on our home page, and no article is ever perfect so it's likely that constructive edits will occur. Sam Walton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Nishidani at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. During the discussion, Nishidani has written responses to Greg's comments (like this, this, and this) and my comments (such as this), all of which indicate a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks. It's one thing to respond to comments but it's another to fail in holding back aggressiveness in the process. What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not.

Out of concern about these comments, I gave Nishidani a warning about PAs on his talk page (probably not the best warning, now that I think about it, but it certainly reflected my concerns at the time). Then, I noticed that the same aggressive comments on the AfD were continuing, so I gave Nishidani a couple more serious warnings. After I discussed with another user about why I did not include diffs, Nishidani gave me this rather condescending and aggressive response. In addition, Nishidani has shown failure to assume good faith in regards to what he calls IP editors (like this and this in his talk page). While I do understand the mistrust in IP users, I have seen a number that have contributed positively to Misplaced Pages and there was no need to rush to conclusions.

Now, the AfD discussion has quieted down at the moment. However, all of these interactions I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check. Let it be known that this is my first rodeo at ANI, so forgive me if I did anything wrong. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: You should strike your own assumption of bad faith in Example text "I/P", when Nishidani used it in that context, clearly referred to "Israel/Palestine" and not "Internet Protocol". The latter group (anons or IP editors -- no one calls them "I/P editors") are actually not allowed edit articles related to Israel/Palestine, so there isn't even any overlap. What you did above isn't really even a failure to actively assume good faith -- you went out of your way to interpret Nishidani's words in an unintuitive manner (the I/P area, which I would advise anyone not to get sucked into, is a good training ground; many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. to make a point about how disruptive you want the community to think he is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I didn't know there was actually a difference between "IP" and "I/P". I've always been aware of "IP" and have never seen "I/P" being used before. So when I saw Nishidani use "I/P", I didn't take the / into account and immediately assumed he was talking about IP users and not Israeli/Palestine articles. One really shouldn't blame me, considering I'm still learning the ropes around here. Don't assume bad faith and think I'm doing this on purpose to bolster the image that Nishidani is a disruptive user who deserves to be banned. But anyway, I have recognized my error and struck that part out. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF), make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA) or request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him.Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text. This thread should be closed without action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's ok to ask people to cool down, but your warnings may not be taken kindly; it's a good idea to leave people alone if they ask you to. Reduces irritation all around. All the people involved are very experienced editors with thousands of edits to their name. EMG can respond to Nishidani if they want to themselves (and they have). Discussion in this area tends to become heated sometimes, but overall, the discussion is focused on the facts of the matter. I have left a short comment on the AfD page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, judging by what's been said and done on the AfD, is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. But it seems like, specifically for this incident, Greg has been the one to stay calm and collected during discussions (as best as he can, I can presume), while Nishidani's been the one to lose his cool and make all of these seemingly baseless accusations. Whatever the larger situation is, I think it should be addressed. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved – no administrative action needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards