Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 3 January 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Editor continuing to insert POV content

After being warned, user Pepeleyva continues to insert personal commentary and POV regarding author Jon Krakauer in various articles. Diffs here:

• Jon Krakauer article: ; ;
• Mount Everest article:
• Anatoli Bourkeev article:
• Regarding POV violations, editor was warned: ; ;
• Regarding 3RR violations, editor was warned:
• I have communicated with the editor on his talk page: ;
• I have also communicated with the editor on my talk page:
  

Based on the number of edits under his account, editor is relatively new, there seems to be a possibility of a language barrier (based on his writing), and he's certainly displaying a severe case of WP:IDHT as other editors have attempted to communicate with him as well. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

After other editors have expressed to this user that NPOV content is essential and POV content is a violation of policy (see here and here), User:Pepeleyva is now using an IP sock (User:201.130.205.234), inserting the same POV content here and here. He's now defiantly exhibiting WP:IDHT even though other editors have tried to work with him since this report was filed. And -- could someone take the time to explain to me why no one has touched this report since it was filed? Should I have not filed it or is there some other reason? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LesHB is right. After LesHB reverted and warned Pepeleyva, an IP editor tried to add the contentious material back into Jon Krakauer and Anatoli Boukreev. LesHB caught one and I caught the other. Either a major coincidence or possibly some socking. I've placed all three articles (including Mount Everest) on my watch list, and encourage other editors to to the same. Thanks LesHB. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444, with Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, TenPoundHammer blanks articles with a #redirect instead of proceeding through the AFD process. His short-cutting though the proper Misplaced Pages process is a judgmental process which does not permit the established methodology to function, and then he gets upset when he is reverted after not leaving any comments in the edit after him and Eric444 have done what they have decided to do. If they are self-appointed administrators, then they have to conform to the established procedures for what they wish to do. In addition, I was not notified of this clandestine discussion by him as shown in the above heading. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I also must bring to the Administrators attention the Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski on this page, as TenPoundHammer has in the past done this on several occasions to articles I have edited, and presumably to thousands of other articles which has has effectively deleted by the misuse of the #redirect command, which goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"....I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. ...." There is no factual truth to these statements. I request he supply the logs of his false accusation. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD is not required when merges or redirects are involved. --MuZemike 01:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer does not merge articles with #redirects. He abuses the #redirect function to circumvent the RFD process Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am still waiting to see my comments on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). As I never made any comments on that article, I'm curious to see what TenPoundHammer is falsely accusing me of writing Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bwmoll3, there are some clear guidelines for when a song is notable - I believe you've already been directed to WP:NSONGS. If it doesn't meet the guideline, and isn't notable separately under WP:GNG, then redirecting it to the article on the album (or the artist) is the correct course, and does NOT require an Afd. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood Elen, however, if a #redirect is used, does that also not imply that the information in the song's article be merged into the album's article as part of the #redirect process? Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two choices: either a redirect like the ones of which you're complaining, or a deletion debate that will result in the same redirect. Why force the bureaucratic AFD? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the RFD is the proper procedure for deletions. A #redirect is used when merging articles, or when a title of one article is another name for another article. Using #redirect in lieu of a proper RFD is a misuse of command, and does not allow a full and proper RFD which users can comment and a consensus reached. Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that's not how things work. RFD is for the deletion of redirects; AFD is for the deletion of articles. There is no need whatsoever to discuss before redirecting a non-notable article; it is called being bold, and no content is deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

" 'Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444 Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) "

I find this entire statement very rude, childish, immature, as well as the statement being absolutely false and a blatant attempt to besmirched my reputation by presenting false statements as facts. This editor should apologize publicly to immediately and also be sanctioned severely for this false, slanderous accusation against me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You had better lose the quasi-legalese terminology, or you risk being booted from wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have we not spent enough time on this issue now? There's no need to have an AfD or RfD before redirecting an article (although there now is one, the likely result of which will be, er, redirect). TPH has been doing the right thing in redirecting these unreferenced permastubs. Bwmoll3 - this is not the massively important thing you think it is. Read the guidelines, get a grip, and put your undoubted enthusiasm for content creation to better use. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't start this. This incident was started by TenPoundHammer with his false and inflammatory comments on this page. I'm simply making my comments with regards to his actions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Another view would be that you created an issue by not adhering to policy/guideline, then complaining at people when they did, then refusing to pay attention when people tried to enlighten you of what the policies and guidelines are. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ringing an admin on this.--Ankit Maity 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullying, canvassing, forum-shopping, railroading?

We've got something of a situation brewing over at Talk:Association of Global Automakers. An editor hired by a company to write "their" Misplaced Pages article is (successfully) canvassing and forum-shopping for accomplices to come in and bully, railroad, and shout down all those who question the rectitude and balance of the article:

On 21 December, Association of Global Automakers was started by WWB Too (talk · contribs), who declares he was hired by that company (as he has been hired by others; here, here, here, and here, for example) to write "their" article. WWB Too discloses his ("potential", as he sees it) conflict of interest in each of the several arenas where he discusses the article including the article talk page and the automobiles project page.

On 22 December, Jenova20 (talk · contribs) added what look to me like warranted templates to the article with what looks to me like an appropriate edit summary, and initiated discussion on the talk page, under which WWB Too objected to the templates on grounds of having stated on the automobiles project page his intent to write the article and posting a link to draft versions in his userspace. There was fairly civil conversation, which I joined on 28 December. Biker Biker (talk · contribs) joined in the discussion; like Jenova20, he and I raise our eyebrows (and support the templates' inclusion) at what looked like an overtly promotional piece written by an editor hired to do so, with no content that could shed less than warmly glowing light on the subject organisation.

On 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Youreallycan (talk · contribs), who went to the article talk page, belligerently and incorrectly accused two of the wrong editors (myself and Biker Biker ) of adding templates, twice disregarding the diff showing the actual origin of the templates.

Meanwhile, YouReallyCan seemed to take the position that reinstating templates unilaterally removed without consensus is the same as adding templates from scratch and appears to reject all disagreement (e.g., ) with that opinion. S/he repeatedly harassed me (by dint of repetition; the content itself wasn't of a harassing nature) on my talk page —with odd demands that I cease removing "good faith discussions" from my own talk page and a strange threat to disregard my contributions to the discussion (which gives the appearance of a belief that s/he is an arbiter or otherwise privileged editor of some kind), and also badgered Biker Biker on his talk page in similar fashion . On the article talk page, YouReallyCan mischaracterised the COI template as a punitive device , issued orders that other editors are not to add templates , and declared there to be no support for the templates' retention despite the editor who originally placed them stating he is temporarily unavailable for extensive editing during the holidays and other editors including myself pointing out that there's no timeline or deadline for the removal of the templates except perhaps one that might come not from Misplaced Pages policy but from the agency that bought the article in the first place: ].

YouReallyCan stated that "templates are of little value to the project", then—just hours after they'd been put up—unilaterally removed the templates and went to war seven times in less than two hours with editors who reinstated them . This edit war gave rise to a 3RR report with black marks for Biker Biker (and perhaps for YouReallyCan; I can't tell) and a sysop's temporary PP of the article .

Also on 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), who declared his own unilateral intent to remove the templates if his demand is not met within 48 hours for their justification to his satisfaction, then gave a nod and a wink to WWB Too (, scroll down).

I started a tangential conversation on Jimbo's talk page aimed at learning if or how his 2009 opinion on bought-and-paid editing has changed; this conversation was joined by YouReallyCan, WWB Too, Tagishsimon, Ebikeguy, and others; as of this writing Jimbo has yet to weigh in. It appears from that discussion that WWB Too counts his or her userspace as "somewhere else" for the purpose of compliance with Jimbo's opinion that it is perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way. I'm not sure that's what Jimbo meant by "somewhere else"; I think he probably meant somewhere off Misplaced Pages, but I'm not Jimbo so I can't say for sure.

I also made substantial and reliably-supported content contributions to the article in an attempt to address some of the issues raised in the templates ; these appear to have upset paid article author WWB Too, who has done what gives the appearance of additional canvassing and shopping for backup on that matter .

I am not comfortable with what looks and feels to me like a rather successful attempt at distributive paid ownership of an article, nor with the tactics being used to take and hold onto that power. All editors named in this report have been notified of this present discussion and linked to it. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C04:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the notice on Jimbo's talk page. I don't about the other editors and incidents that User:Scheinwerfermann references, but I'm looking into User:WWB Too. So far it appears that he's completely corrupt and should not be editing the Misplaced Pages. This is pretty hair raising stuff and swift and drastic action may be called for here. Herostratus (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that at least 2 editors pushing to sustain the same COI-fostered edits does strike me as alarming, as a potential WP:TAGTEAM effort, especially when one editor is targetting the individual opponent user-talk pages and re-posting warnings (multiple times within 3 minutes!) to user-talk pages when those users have re-deleted warnings from their own talk-pages (specifically: the edit diff-5507 un-reverting an editor's trimmed talk-page to insist a posted warning remain on that user-talk page). Forcing users to keep warnings on their talk-pages, in at least a 2-person effort to maintain COI-fostered edits, strikes me as very alarming. I will delay further detailed comments, to avoid giving "advice" here for how to be a less-pushy WP:TAGTEAM member. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the article, nor with the idea of someone being paid to write it. Especially since they (WWB Too) are now spending lots of effort to maintain the article in the shape and form that they (or their bosses) prefer to see. Better no article at all, in my opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of the diffs given as evidence of bullying and harassment etc. show absolutely nothing of the sort. The article talk page is the place for the discussions - the use of this board to gain what one does not have at an article is fraught with peril, indeed. The issue of templates is always controversial, and is best dealt with by seeking consensus at the article talk page - not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. For example, one diff allegedly showing Youreallycan "issuing orders" to remove templates states: Not a single user has responded to my request to explain the reason for the templates here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC). This doesn't sound like an order to me. Another diff of a so-called "order" states: The templates were not there - you added them - either explain your reasons for adding the individual templates below or stop adding them - they were there before is no excuse to add them again. Youreallycan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC). Again, I'm at a loss to see how this can be construed as an "order". Δρ.Κ.  08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Look at more diffs; other diffs do show extreme evidence of bullying and harassment, plus taken as a whole set of posted messages, all diffs considered together show a pattern of obsessive behavior, in the manner of someone re-posting variations of "You had better not do it again" multiple times to a user-talk page within one hour. The problem is not the content of each diff, separately, it is the pattern of so many similar, repeated user-talk warnings within a few hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ypu mean like ? Sorry - I canna think of that diff as being harassment of anyone at all. YMMV, I guess. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I personally don't care who writes an article or if they managed to get a few dollars for doing it. I think it's better to look at it and say to yourself - is it better than it was and if the answer is yes then great. The template bombing of this article appears to be more of a "reaction" to the declaration that the user got a few dollars for writing it, so it must be evil personified and needs exposing rather than there being specific content issues that can be clarified and resolved. Perhaps there is a degree of critical content that could be added, then, it's not finished, just quietly add it. The community is "no consensus" on paid editors and I have found WWB to be a decent writer to GA standard, that says close to policy - there is no reason to demonize him or his work for his good faith contributions. If the energy that had been put into this report had been put into clearly stating what the specific issues with the content are then any issues would have been resolved by now.Youreallycan (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not bothered by the conflict of interest, i'm bothered by writing on my talk page to assume good faith and remove the tags to allow the article to exist unedited though.

I'm bothered by the sneaky rephrasing of calling this group anything other than a lobby group.

I'm bothered by the obvious canvassing now.

I'm also bothered by the clear intent to break rules by WWB to get his own way and ignore the criticism given to him by the article, either by trying to charm his way out (my talk page) or by ignoring criticism (talk page of Mr Choppers).

Admitting a Conflict Of Interest is good, not acting on suggestions from well respected and knowledgeable editors like our Mr Choppers is another thing.

I support a cleanup or deletion, either way the article can't exist in current form and this Conflict of Interest clearly runs a lot deeper by the sheer audacity of WWB's actions.

I'm also the one who added the tags for anyone still wondering.

Thanks Jenova20 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would respond to my questions on the talkpage then to please clearly explain the specific reasons and related content they refer to so I and anyone else that wants to can address your issues and work towards improving the article and removing the templates. I don't accept your claim that the article can't exist in its current form, there might be minor issues but not more than that a little editing will easily resolve - deletion - well you are welcome to nominate it but I don't see that deletion would be a possibility. - Youreallycan (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• The complete absence of any mention of lawsuits brought by the Association of Global Automakers is one glaring example of why the tags are necessary. I don't know if the lawsuits are "dirt" or not, but they do show us that COI editors suffer from a kind of myopia. I suppose the reason might be to softpeddle their activities: mere advocacy, mere friendly persuasion, rather than the truth that the auto industry group is also willing to use courts to force others to do things, or not do things that they wish to do. COI editors typically whitewash conflict and controversy and make everything seem all warm and happy.

  Also, an adequate summary of the lawsuit news stories would include the positions of those who were sued by the Association of Global Automakers. So the page would not longer be only a platform for the views of the Association, but would also contain a fair summary of the views of their opponents. The template {{COI}} exists to warn readers that in its current state, such opposing views are missing.

  Clearly, the correct response to the maintenance tags would have been to spent time finding missing content from the article, rather than running around to talk pages and deleting maintenance tags. Instead of repeatedly challenging others to explain the tags, go do a search at Google News and expand the article appropriately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Paid editing is a contentious issue, and in my view, in an ideal situation, it would not happen. But there is no consensus against it, and in practice it would be impossible to police. And the author has been open about it, which is a good thing. On the whole, I think decisions about articles like this should be based entirely on the article content itself. Had the exact same, word-for-word, article been written by someone else, would there be the same controversy? I suspect not. So I'm with Youreallycan here, and I think we should work to make this article better rather than just argue about who created it and their motivation. If anyone wants to add tags to any parts of the content, that's fine, but they should be prepared to explain what precisely is wrong with that content on the Talk page so that it can be addressed - and if they can't or won't do that when challenged, I think it is fair to remove the tags -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment See 1 January 2011 interview with WWB/William Beutler on C-SPAN Q&A, discussing his work on Misplaced Pages. I watched it live, and the transcript and video will be available later. It's being replayed live now. 99.50.186.111 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the COI editor in question

It is very ironic that Scheinwerfermann complains about anyone's "bullying" on this topic, as this is a very apt description of his behavior throughout this whole episode. I would invite any interested editor to read through our correspondence on the Global Automakers discussion page and conclude anything but that he is going out of his way to make me feel unwelcome on Misplaced Pages (even on Talk pages), not to mention stonewalling anyone who would ask about his concerns with the original article. Meanwhile, he's deleted even friendly correspondence between the two of us on his Talk page, for reasons that are a mystery to me, and deleted my inquiries as to such, which is more mystifying still.

Among other issues, he seems to willfully misunderstand the concept of canvassing, or forum-shopping. The guideline, to which he linked in pressing his case, outlines appropriate and inappropriate requests for assistance, and I can't imagine I've wound up on the wrong side of it. What's considered appropriate: "Limited posting" (I pinged two uninvolved editors); "Neutral" (in each message I said it was OK if they declined to get involved); "Nonpartisan" (admittedly these are editors with whom I had previously interacted, and whose wisdom I respected); "Open" (at least no one has accused me of hiding my affiliation).

Meanwhile, on this page and relevant others, Scheinwerfermann has referred to the Global Automakers article as "'their' article" but whom he is quoting is anyone's guess. It appears as if he's quoting me, but I don't think I've said that, and if it's my phrasing, it would be incorrect—I surely don't claim ownership of the article, nor would I. That's different from saying that I agree with some of his recent changes to the article, but I will bring that up over there, in the next few days.

For anyone who is curious about the chronology of this disagreement before it expanded beyond the Global Automakers Talk page, please see the explanatory note I left here. I think it helps to put Scheinwerfermann's innuendo-laden description of recent events in proper perspective.

Anyway, I'm not sure what is Scheinwerfermann's point in bringing this up here. He doesn't seem to like that I was engaged by Global Automakers to create an article about them, but their notability doesn't seem to be in question, and the original article was not intended to be a puff piece, so pretty much everything about this baffles me. I am well aware that paid editing is controversial and for that reason I have made every effort to disclose my potential COI and to work within all applicable guidelines and policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR—the same guidelines and policies that Scheinwerfermann seems to think don't apply to him.

And for what it's worth—although it may not be much—my agreement with Global Automakers related to the article's placement, not to final content. At this point, for me, it's all about the fact that I think I created a neutral and worthwhile article, and that my work has been badly misrepresented. I'm now defending it because what's transpired is a detriment not necessarily to the goals of my client, but to those of Misplaced Pages. Best, WWB Too (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

I have edited this report to clarify my meaning in objecting to YouReallyCan's "harassing" me on my talk page. It was his or her deliberately repetitive badgering that felt like harassment; the content of his or her repetitive posts was mostly neutral. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying, although I think you are being too kind (in saying, "mostly neutral"), but I appreciate your turn towards leniency, since we need to find some ways to all work together. Perhaps "trout-slapping" :) would be an adequate sanction in this case, where COI editors want to edit-war, and threaten users to keep POV-tags out of a lobbyist's article. Meanwhile, let me re-iterate the problems in user behavior, to let people know these types of actions cause concern:

• New Year's Eve oblivion: If someone replies to a question that they need more time due to a multi-national holiday (replied diff-444), then a proper reply would be to thank them for their reason and accept a 3-day extension on the full reply, but not take the advantage, in their absence, and delete their 4 article-tags (diff-669) while knowing they are away.
• New Year's Eve edit-orders: It is not proper to restore deleted bark orders 3x times on a user-talk page () to demand of them, "state your reasons and the specific content".
• New Year's Eve non-consensus tag deletion: It is best to wait for consensus, after New Year's Eve, before deleting WP:NPOV tags or {{Puffery}} tags from an article (diff-669) when those tags are being discussed on the talk-page (diff-797). Posting an ultimatum requesting reasons for the bias-tag templates, at 13:49 (diff-084), and then seeing only 1 partial reply in 7 hours does not permit deletion of POV-tags on New Year's Eve without a wider consensus.

I will stop at those 3 issues, as enough of a reminder to allow a few more days for other editors to respond to talk-page questions. Again, I appreciate that others wish to approach these events with a lenient attitude, so that all editors can find ways to work together on any potential bias issues being discussed at "Talk:Association of Global Automakers". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour of an admin

There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see ), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see , which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see , which resulted in an inflammatory response, see ), and a bigger forum (see ).

That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see , which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Misplaced Pages, see ).

I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see ). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see , which generated no response from the admin).

If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter.

This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Misplaced Pages sources report (see , or ) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Misplaced Pages stands for. Aditya 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You were given a notification using standard Misplaced Pages templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's unlikely that the template has been used thousands of times where there is no edit-war, especially on the party who's been trying to get a discussion going and has approval of uninvolved editors. I know you're an admin and you can block me too. But, that doesn't make a wrong a right. BTW, I've been templated again with a slightly threatening note added, by the same admin. I really don't see much WP:AGF going around. Aditya 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Once again, a basic template has been used on your page - why not simply take the advice? Here's an interesting test, by the way: if you decide to reply to this thread, after you click "edit" look at the very top of the page - you'll notice a big orange box. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way was there no edit war at Bikini? Note that as there was only really 2 people involved, you can't claim BMK was edit warring but you weren't. As to why BMK wasn't notified they are a regular and so are well aware of our policy on edit warring, notifying them is not necessary. Although you've apparently been here for a while, it appears notifying you of our policy was appropriate given then you then disputed you were actually edit warring. Do remember that while it is good you initated and participated in discussion, this doesn't mean it's okay to edit war to try to enforce the result of the discussion. People have already pointed out ways you can get help if you achieve consensus but continue to be reverted.

Also as has been said you should have been informed both when editing this page and in the header that you need to notify people you are discussing. Since you did not do so, rather then complaining about being templated, just remember to do it next time.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

i think hes mad because the other user involved did not get a warning. also, aditya had conensus on the talk page and started a discussion, the other user involved still has not entered the discussion and consensus is completely against the way they keep reverting to. Bouket (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, if you are so sensitive, I am amazed that you have lasted so long on Misplaced Pages without leaving in frustration. I see nothing "inflammatory", nor any evidence of "malevolence". As for your claim that you were not edit warring, do you know what the expression "edit warring" means? If you don't then I suggest reading WP:Edit warring. If, on the other hand, you do know what it means, then I suggest looking at this edit, this one, and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• sorry can i ask a question? it seems aditya has conensus according to the talk page. the other user involved has not even joined the discussion. what is the correct course of action for aditya to follow, when he has consensus on the talk page but is still getting reverted? Bouket (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears he had the last edit on 29 December. I think his correct course of action is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and maybe even AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis gaming the system – again

User Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over the past year or so been involved in several disputes over the topic of diacritics (which he wants to rid wikipedia of). The common pattern has been a display of battleground mentality by move-warring, edit-warring and gaming the system (via editing redirects, so that page moves would not be possible without the intervention of an admin). For this, he deservedly received a page move ban (which seems to have been lifted since). After receiving the ban, he immediately started peppering WP:RM with move requests, which would normally have a good chance of going through if no-one opposed noticed it, thereby obtaining the same end result. For this, he was banned from making move requests for a while.

See also the latest (?) major quarrels over diacritics on Talk:Dominik Halmosi and Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský.

Dolovis is now back to his old tricks, making deliberate "mistakes" while creating redirects with diacritics, prompting him to edit the redirects again, adding template "R from title with diacritics". Diffs: , , , . This is exactly why he received the page move ban.

It seems to me that Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what, kind of a WP:OWN for the whole topic of ice hockey. He displays a total disrespect for other editors, in effect dismissing the whole idea of consensus, hoping to eventually wear other editors down. I think it's time to discuss expanding the ban on Dolovis to at least a topic ban for ice hockey (which is where his contributions are the most controversial) – and to reinstate the move ban and the ban on WP:RM, if indeed they have been lifted.

I think it's safe to say that Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn.

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Already being discussed: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial moves Ma®©usBritish  10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The issues are related, but not the same. Dolovis is reporting Thomas280784 for "controversial" moves, I am reporting Dolovis for gaming the system – again. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not following, sorry ... are you saying the diacritic spellings are wrong, or that he should be making the diacritic spelling the stub and the ascii-7 (non diacritic) versions the direct? Nobody Ent 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This report is aimed at Dolovis's behavior. On the diacritics issue, my view is that since they exist, and since there are articles on people, places, etc, that use them in en-wiki, it should reflect them (i.e. use the diacritics) in the title too. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd oppose any type of ban, on Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are supporting his behavior, which is what this report is aimed at? Is gaming the system allowed for diacritics-critics, but not others? Do not the rules apply equally to editors, regardless of views? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Banning editors on either side of the dios dispute, will only add to the drama surrounding the topic. In future, go the RM route & there'll be less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I support his actions if the end result is limiting or eliminating diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That is an unreasonable position. Having rules that don't apply to all editors ... I'm ... speechless. You're advocating anarchy, do you know that? Say, is there any breach of rules (or law) that Dolovis could commit, that you wouldn't oppose sanctions against him for, as long as that furthers if it furthered his fight (and yours) against windmills diacritics? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella (geez.. some ego.. lol), GoodDay is well know for his strong pro-English national sentiments and Anglo-centric ideals, whether for better or for worse, that's my observation not a criticism. Simply put.. don't get drawn into a prolonged argument with him over this, you won't change his mind. On the flip side, I don't think a ban on Dolovis is necessary either. Just a firm bollocking, and told to read Misplaced Pages:DIACRITICS#Modified letters. I see this in the same way as British English vs American English – either use the strongest national tie, or if that fails, use whichever version of the article was created first, for the content, and redirect the other. In the end it's the same article. Ma®©usBritish  18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you have to interrupt? Goodday was just a few replies from defining himself as the first-ever wiki-terrorist sympathizer. ;-) HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, a) that would be baiting, and b) "wiki-terrorist" might be seen as a personal attack, so best not use it. I wouldn't get too smug that Dolovis has not won his argument.. things can quickly boomerang on ANI if you get complacent. Besides, GoodDay would be cautious, as he already has restrictions in other areas and wouldn't want to make his situation worse. Ma®©usBritish  21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, Dolovis is redirecting articles about hockey players whose names feature diacritics to titles without the diacritics (which is incorrect to start with as the thread above demonstrated) and then editing the redirect which prevents his action being reversed without administrative intervention. He has been warned about this before and instructed to refrain from this practice. I have blocked him for a week while further discussion can take place about what should be done long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can see the problem here -

• Dolovis creates Tomas Matousek - which isn't correct as the guy is Swiss and his momma called him Tomáš Matoušek, and we can see above that the ice hockey guys are now agreeable to the use of diacritics for players outside of the main North american ice hockey league.
• Dolovis then creates Tomáš Matoušek as a redirct to Tomas Matousek , and edits the page to add {{tl:R from title with diacritics}}.
• This means that his redirect cannot be reverted, so User:Kajman87 attempts to make a mend by copying the content from Tomas Matousek to Tomáš Matoušek, which is of course not how it's supposed to be done, violates Misplaced Pages's content release licenses, and is going to take some poor admin several minutes to clean up.

This is just disruptive. It has been the subject of previous ANI discussions and Dolovis has only escaped sanction by agreeing not to do it again. I consider the week block a mere precautionary, and would recommend that the community discuss how to deal with this long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the really clear explanation. A ban of some sort seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Long term solution: follow MOS guidelines. Use templates — Misplaced Pages:DIACRITICS#Modified letters and {{R from title without diacritics}}. Most standard English keyboards don't have easy ways to add accents, and not all native-English speakers are aware of every form of accent.. never mind incapable of creating them. So non-accented alternatives are necessary for searching which then redirect to the correct versions. It should be policy under ENGVAR to have unglyphed redirections of accented names to make it easier for everyone. See also recent RFC discussion: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ma®©usBritish  18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems at all with someone properly creating unglyphed redirects to all the versions with diacritics - as you and MOS both agree, it's very useful. It is the way Dolovis does things to attempt to prevent the creation of the article at the glyphed title that is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly impressed by this. Dolovis and I have rarely gotten along, but I did support his request to have his page move ban lifted because he claimed to recognize how such behaviour was disruptive, and promised to cease making such edits. Hopefully the block serves as a reminder that these kinds of actions won't go unnoticed. Resolute 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add that these latest articles are all participants in the World Junior Hockey Championship, which is currently ongoing. Dolovis created them (typically with almost no information or value) so that he can dictate that the articles start without diacritics. If you wish to consider the IIHF's official literature for this tournament, he is potentially correct in some cases: all official programs and guides drop diacritics for Czech/Slovak names. However, diacritics are used for Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Swiss names. Russian is transliterated, and it appears Latvian names are also somewhat transliterated. Canada and the US have no names that require them. I would not care to guess whether the disuse of diacritics for the Slovaks, Czechs and Latvians indicates that dropping them is considered a proper spelling, or if they themselves just simplified for the sake of a North American audience. Resolute 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See also this. Resolute 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is a hideously cynical abuse of the system by Dolovis; he's just exploiting a technicality to get his own way. Regardless of whether we should use accents in titles, his behaviour, considering he's been subject to sanctions for this kind of thing before, is unacceptable. I propose a full topic ban from modifying/discussing/suggesting changes to the titles of articles about ice hockey players, or any other article titles which could contain accents, as he's just causing disruption when he edits in this area. It's time for him to move on. In response to Marcus British – we don't need to omit the accents for search reasons; you'll still get to the article even if you type it in without accents. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Basalisk, you are right with one exception. The drop down / "matching suggestions" search box works by Javascript (which I just tested to confirm). Without Javascript, or with it disabled, you don't get offered accented alternatives, thus making the process harder. I know disabling Javascript based on a lot of cynicism and "more vulnerable to hacking" myths, these days, but there are people and places who still practice it. And I'm not sure how iPhone/Blackberry type handsets work with regards to searching Wiki, and Javascript, as I don't use them, but I wonder if there are more limited. So in some case there are going to be people who experience hold-ups. Ma®©usBritish  19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't really know enough about such things to bolster my opinion really! I guess I just like the authenticity of writing names the way they would be presented in their native language. I still stand by my suggestion of a ban, though. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, there would be no issue to creating an unglyphed version and redirecting it to the glyphed version. It is creating an artificial history at the glyphed version to prevent the article being at that title that is the problem. here is the original discussion concerning Dolovis, where this behaviour has been previously discussed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) here is the discussion from October where he asked for the pagemove ban to be reduced on a pledge of good behaviour. Dolovis is arguing on his userpage that his actions are entirely above board. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is a very trivial matter. We're talking about letters here.. it's not like he's playing with fire by altering religions and nationalities, etc. This is more a matter of MOS practices and accessibility, possibly an aside to ENGVAR. However, if he has has a ban or restrictions placed previously, he should not directly aim to breach it, or indirectly the spirit of it. But again, the matter is so trivial, that imo only people with a COI or a pessimistic admin could really say there is a severe lack of "good faith" in what he is trying to accomplish. His methods may be questionable, his goal is not. Ban him? No. Stop his methods being disruptive. Yes. Perhaps a little more headway would be achieved if editors stopped trying to make a mountain out of this.. it's not a big issue. It's a few wavy lines above some letters. In the end if we can have both, accented and plain English, then we can't go about punishing an editor for trying to apply one more forcefully. We simply need to get him to adopt a more NPOV. Mentor him or some shit.. don't beat him up over it. Ma®©usBritish  20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to try talking to him? He might listen to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd second that.

Slightly related... MarcusBritish, re bad faith. As I pointed out in the previous thread Dolovis I'm uninvolved with this but I do see them acting in poor, if not bad, faith when they level an SPA accusation at an editor that obviously isn't based on contribution record. I also see it in creating new redirects under a accented name in such a way as to block good faith editors from boldly moving articles to them. This is part of the behavior that earned the indef ban from moving pages, true. But it is as disruptive, and a little more deplorable, when they have only reason for the edit after the fact to add the category template is to "lock" the page. - J Greb (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That'll be a first.. but will give it a go. Am not taking sides though.. from his POV I don't think he's done anything too severe, just untoward, from a Wiki POV diacritics are a pain in the ass and limit accessibility. There are solutions, and I see no reason to deny him the ability to partake in doing things the right way. Ma®©usBritish  20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't fault you for that. The only concern I would have is if they continue to be disruptive if the "right" way doesn't match their way. We're here right now because of that. If it persists, it may become the reason for the denial of participation in some degree. - J Greb (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This matter affects such a small percentage of articles, that it seems to me to have been over-looked and only thinly tackled in MOS. That's not the fault of the editors, but the fault of the community for not closing the loophole. It only appears that he is going against policy.. but the policy on diacritics appears so thin, it's hard to say. Maybe time to tighten up the policy like ENGVAR, and make it less open to interpretation. At the moment it's his interpretation against others. I don't care either way, because both solutions can be applied. Ma®©usBritish  21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he closed the discussion on his talk page whilst whining about something or other. To me that's an example of WP:IDHT. I know where he can shove my thoughts now. Later, Ma®©usBritish  22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the article Tomas Jurco, Dolovis' rvts were correct. An RM to move to diacritics, had been held at that bio article & no consensus was reached. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They might have been, but then again, this issue is about his other behavior. And another RM could be opened, and then there would be a new decision.

I must say that I am very pessimistic about the chances of Dolovis complying by the rules. His history demonstrates the opposite, and still there seems to be admins ready give him more room. I don't know of any editor who has been so disruptive, and yet so cuddled by parts of the community. He adapts his tactics for the time being when he is punished, and, when he thinks nobody is looking, he resumes his previous behavior. We should have learned by now. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a section about move functionality at the Village Pump. The technical problem of the edit needed to add a template to the redirect following a move causes inconvenience after any affected move, not just in cases like this. --Mirokado (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My take on this is that Dolovis is being deliberately disruptive despite having been told in the past that such behaviour is not wanted. In the days of typesetting, diacritics were not generally used in English language text, unless it was in a book on learning a foreign language, where such use was essential. Nowadays, we have the technology to use diacritics. As we have the technology, we should use it. For those uncomfortable with the use of diacritis or unable to use them for whatever reason, a redirect should be created from the plain text version of the title whenever an article is housed at a title with a diacritic in it.

I would support any restriction that prevented Dolovis from moving such article or creating such redirects. There are plenty of other editors around who are able and willing to do such tasks without creating controversy in doing so. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case the issue is not the need to add a template to a redirect after a move, but that Dolovis creates an article at a non-diacritic title. At a later point, he creates a redirect with diacritics (ok), then in a separate edit, adds a template so as to frustrate any non-admin's ability to move the article. It is that last edit that is causing Dolovis his issues. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand that. If Dolovis cannot play nicely, then he shouldn't be allowed to play at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)

Cut and paste moves

User:Kajman87 appears to have "fixed" some of these articles via cut and paste moves. I am going to try and clean up that mess At the risk of causing a pile more issues, if they are current World Junior tournament participants, I will move them to the version that is reflected either in the IIHF programs I have (some cases with diacritics, some without) or per the result of a recent RM discussion. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2-ish¢

I'd restore the article/stub versions (plain) first to what was initially created. Check the redirects (diacritics) to see if anything points to them. If not just flat delete them. If so, delete and recreate the full redirect in one go. Then move things that need to be moved by a reliable source.

Some article won't, some diacritic redirects won't exist, and some of the moves may be yelled at, but at least the basis will be relatively "clean". - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the end, it seems they only moved about four Slovakian players. I simply undid the edits rather than get complicated. As such, they are presently back at non-diacritic formats. Discussion on the proper spellings I leave to interested parties. Resolute 00:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban proposal for Dolovis on moving/redirecting/or otherwise changing the titles of diacritic articles

Regardless of our own personal opinions on how diacritics should work (such as myself being a firm supporter of WP:COMMONNAME), it is quite clear that the diacritics issue is one that, for the people involved in it, is very highly debated. After the last huge big flare up that involved Jimbo's talk page and multiple others places a couple of months ago, things were agreed upon and everything became much more peaceful. However, Dolovis' actions here are pretty much the exact same that got him the move ban in the first place before and are extremely disruptive in terms of the agreement that was made in regards to Wikiproject Hockey and other groups. It is, to say it plainly, continued POV pushing on the subject of diacritics by Dolovis and the proper sanctions from such actions should be given out.

Remember, this has nothing to do with your personal opinions on diacritics. I'm far more on Dolovis' side of the issue than those who favor diacritics, but I can clearly recognize that these actions are deliberately disruptive. Therefore, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban on moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles. This is indefinite in the sense that once Dolovis has proven that they will permanently stop these disruptive actions, the topic ban can be removed, but I suggest that the ban lasts a minimum of 1-3 months, if not longer, considering this is very clearly not a first offense in regards to this issue. Silverseren 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The other thing we have to question is what do we do about new articles that Dolovis makes, as was mentioned above, where s/he is making articles on newly notable hockey players with titles that are in direct violation of what Wikiproject Hockey has put together. Perhaps require Dolovis to go through Wikiproject Hockey before making them? Silverseren 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Based on Nobody's comment below, i'd added to the bolded part that the redirecting includes making new redirects in relation to diacritics. I assume that the intelligence of future users and admins will be enough for them to figure out when a redirect created by Dolovis violates this topic ban and when it does not. Silverseren 12:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss topic ban

This section is for detailed discussion about the issues related to a topic ban. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was unaware that WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey names could override policy WP:COMMONNAME: For years, the rule has been that no particular group of users can define a consensus viewpoint which overrides a WP:Policy statement. That means that "WikiProject Overnight Research" cannot start adding original-research text into articles in defiance of "WP:No original research" nor can a WikiProject override rules for naming articles. If President Bill Clinton once played ice hockey that does not mean the article can be renamed as "William Super-shot Clinton". I cannot support a topic-ban when a WikiProject is being credited with new policy-vio rules as being acceptable. First change one of the 63 sub-pages related to WP:COMMONNAME (WP:TITLE), such as defining policy with WP:Naming conventions (sportspeople), to clearly indicate the naming convention for notable ice-hockey players. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The project isn't overriding common name. Its called a compromise for a reason, there is currently no consensus that common name extends to using or not using diacritics across the entire wiki. The most recent wiki wide Rfc on the matter split almost exactly 50/50 on the topic. As such to stop the unending edit wars on the topic the project came to a compromise until such a time as the wiki as a whole could come to a consensus. Also common name specifically mentions "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." which is what is usually the case when you just strip the diacritics from a name instead of properly translating to English. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is also worth noting that:
  • Neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:UE (the relavent sub-sections of WP:TITLE) outlaw the use of diacritics.
  • WP:TITLE#English-language titles (the part preceding EU and the opening of EU) explicitly acknowledge that diacritics can be in article titles.
  • The hockey section of WP:Naming conventions (sportspeople) is limited to standardizing the dab phrase only.

Lacking a policy, overall guideline, or Misplaced Pages wide consensus it falls to local consensus, either on a Project or article level, to use or not use diacritics. All things considered, until there is a larger consensus to over ride it, WP Ice Hockey is showing a consensus on specifically how to handle diacritics over a body of related articles. This is prederable to the disruption that would be caused with each article going through the same debate.

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Which specific policy statements is User:Dolovis accused of violating? Some other editors have noted that User:Dolovis did not actually violate the same policies, but rather made other changes not specifically prohibited by any policies. I do not call that "disruption", instead I call that "allowed by policy". We do not topic-ban people just because they were previously banned, were unbanned, and then did things allowed by policy. Since this is still the New Years Day holiday, I will allow a few extra days for replies here. Thanks. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT are the two that immediately jump to mind...there are many others that could be considered to have been broken as well such as his tendency to make personal attacks while in his battle mode. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Those two are the biggies. Also, Wikid77 there was no "unbanned". Dolovis is currently under an indefinite ban on moving articles with diacritic titles. Full stop. Their actions have been to game the system to continue editing in a similar manner that resulted in that ban. As a number contributors have pointed out that is the issue here, not the diacritics. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh yes I completely forgot about the most obvious one. WP:GAME. -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support/Oppose topic ban

Consider reading and discussing the detailed issues, above, under "#Discuss topic ban" before posting Support/Oppose below. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• suppport to my knowledge I've never taken part in this debate or had an issue with it, but this kind of behaviour is clearly inappropriate, it's been discussed before, he continued, send him packing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I commend Silver for getting to the heart of the issue here – this has nothing to do with my opinion on diacritics, but Dolovis' gaming of the system is damaging for the encyclopaedia. It has to stop. Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – given that Wiki offers a way of both using and not using diacritics, and that the search function can work with or without them, I agree that they are not the issue. Having tried to discuss the matter with Dolovis, he developed an WP:IDHT stance. It did not help his position. I hope a short ban will help him develop a more neutral view of the matter and allow others tidy up in the meantime. Ma®©usBritish  09:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's been far too much of the battleground mentality, and deliberate gaming of the system. The article creation is part of the same problematic behaviour; I would welcome some kind of constraint on article creation too. We're not so desperate to expand our collection of 2-sentence stubs on obscure hockey players that we need this particular editor to create pointy placeholders with incorrect titles... (Disclaimer: I have been involved in one of Dolovis' previous disputes, but not the current one as I generally don't edit hockey articles) bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – if it's possible to implement. I can see a problem though. Dolovis's strategy to jump at every chance of adding new Czech and Slovak players is aimed at establishing a first diacritic-less version. Since he's neither Czech nor Slovak, why else would he be doing it? He then believes that first version will decide the "fate" (diacritics-wise) of the article for all eternity, kind of like WP:DATERET. Since what he creates by definition is without diacritics, how can a ban stop him? The only way I can see, is that he's only allowed to edit articles on topics relating strictly to the English-speaking world – and that's a very tough ban. And I doubt that it's possible to implement.
  • One more thing: if such a ban is to be implemented, I don't see the point in lifting it after 1-3 months. If he'd keep a promise not to return to his old ways, he'll not suffer from having the ban indefinitely.
  • Yet another thing: judging from several of the comments in the ANI discussion here, and the "Controversial moves" section above, a new consensus seems to have emerged. Was there a new agreement over diacritics? I mean this stuff about Jimbo's talkpage, have I missed something? If there's a new agreement, where can I read about it? And Marcus B, by "tidying up" above, did you mean that it's ok start posting RM:s for articles that miss the diacritics? I mean, I don't want to end up in the same mess as Dolovis.

 HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant if Dolovis has previously moved article content around cut/paste style, etc, they need tidying up back to their original form with the correct history. I don't know what RMs are. Ma®©usBritish  12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves Silverseren 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:RM is the place to go if you're not able to move pages yourself, or if you want a discussion first. I don't think Dolovis would perform copy-paste moves, that is only (or mostly) done by editors unaware of the WP:RM process, or the move functionality. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - and add "creating articles or redirects" to the list of prohibited actions. Nobody Ent 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Silverseren's proposal. I would extend it to "creating BLP's where the subject's name contains diacritics in their native language, whether or not he uses the diacritics." There does seem to be a new consensus about diacritics in people's names - that probably ought to be properly written up elsewhere.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I don't see any vandalism or socking by Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming either; the issue is continued disruption. Nobody Ent 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He aint being disruptive, he's trying to respect the fact that this is English Misplaced Pages & not Multiple language Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics are used in English words. Their use is no different to ENGVAR: "-ise" or "-ize", "-e" or "-é". Ma®©usBritish  13:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Rudy Vallée, Zoë Bell and Noël Coward. Jafeluv (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which should be spelt as Rudy Vallee, Zoe Bell and Noel Coward. In otherwords, I haven't changed my stance. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to change your position, GoodDay. I'm simply pointing out that you represent this as an "English vs. non-English" issue, yet at the same time you say that we should be telling English-speakers how to spell their name in English. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean they didn't/don't know how to spell their own names? One thing, GoodDay: there are some clues – e.g. "spelt" instead of "spelled" – that leads me to believe that your native language is not English. Is that correct? Nothing wrong with that, but that makes it all the more puzzling why you're so eager to "defend" the English wikipedia against diacritics. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's American English: spelt, spilt, learnt, burnt. Spelled, spilled, learned, burned, in British English. Ma®©usBritish  16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you ask your mentors to give you a poke with the neutrality stick. The spelling is no different, and the accented letters are still from the Latin alphabet. The addition of glyphs simply indicates a phonetic difference, because we don't all pronounce things the same. Doesn't matter what your "stance" is.. that's the way the world is regardless of what anyone thinks. Ma®©usBritish  16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't changed my stance. I still oppose topic banning Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's allright. There are another 10 editors here who haven't changed their stance either. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Life is a little more complicated that that: there are several Spanish words whose meaning out of context is only determined by the accent which otherwise denotes the stressed syllable; in German we can replace ü etc by ue but simply dropping the umlaut is fundamentally incorrect; in Scandinavian languages the "accents" are part of the glyph of a different letter – Å sorts after Z in the Danish alphabet, for example. --Mirokado (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand accents.. but in Spanish (and maybe others) I don't get ¿ and ¡ – reverted, upside-down punctuation marks means what? Ma®©usBritish  17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IIUC, ¿<text>? and ¡<text>! are proper formatting of questions and exclamations in Spanish. And we've seem to have strayed a bit far afield... - J Greb (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support an extended ban as proposed by Elen. Dolovis' passion for the subject has entirely clouded his judgement, and his activities are blatantly disruptive. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Now that I see he even creates re-directs that don't make any sense at all — support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support this has been a long time in coming. He is far too aggressive in his dealings on the topic. If he would have focused his energy on helping the wiki in a centralized place come to some sort of agreement then all would be well. Instead he at first focused on overwhelming opposition by creating large numbers of move request, then he proceeded to create double redirects to make it so non-admins couldn't move the articles and then he went out looking for every marginal person he could find with diacritics in their name so that he could create them without the diacritics first. All of this is ridiculous and a clear indication of far too much bad faith and inability to work in a group to solve issues. He definitely needs to be topic banned from all things diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:GAME. Dolovis should equally be indefinitely restrained from disruptive spoiler tactics such as creating worthless stubs of individuals whose names are rendered with diacritics in their native form; equally there should be an indefinite prohibition on editing any namespace containing diacritics. --Ohconfucius 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Questions
  1. Am I reading this right as the indef ban specifically covering: a) Moving existing pages titled with diacritics to English-only; b) editing existing redirects under diacritic titles; and c) creating new redirects under diacritic titles?
  2. What would "...or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles" cover? Use of {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to suppress titles? Use of RM? Requesting/suggesting other editors move pages?
  3. Is this intended to also address actions like #Controversial moves?

I agree that something needs to be done to stop the disruptive habits, but those habits include more than just article and redirect editing.

- J Greb (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about that myself. I think it should be worded as topic banned from creating/moving/discussing articles with diacritics or which would have them in their native languages to clear up ambiguities. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Sigh; it went further south. He should not create titles with diacritics (he doesn't like them anyway), he should not edit diacritic redirects (avoid gaming), and he should not move diacritic related articles (previous ban). The complaint is not about his belief but his tactics. Dolovits should refrain from diacritic gaming. Silencing his voice at RM or discussions isn't appropriate now, but I hope he will dial back his argument style -- repetition and omission are not effective. The issue is contentious, and it will come back. Glrx (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, sadly - I can see merits to both sides in the diacritics debate, but in practice it seems workable using redirects whichever way they happen to be, and we shouldn't have to tolerate any battleground and gaming approaches to railroading it one way or the other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but some browsers cannot access titles with some accented letters, and using the common English names actually fits the spirit of WP:Accessibility. People are judging this issue who do not understand the concepts. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You have a reference to back that claim up I assume right? Because I happen to know that isn't the case for any modern browsers within the last 5 or so years because I have tested. This issue has nothing to do with his opinion but how he goes about trying to implement it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think that User:Dolovis is unlikely to agree to consensus on this topic-ban, since it is founded on incorrect ideas. His opinions about diacritical marks and accented letters have been basically correct, and I would not fault him for some mistakes along the way. Some web browsers (IE7?) cannot access articles with diacritics and accented letters in titles, such as "Dominik Riečický" which becomes the name "Dominik Riecický" matching 1 webpage, rather than the WP:COMMONNAME used in most English-language sources, "Dominik Riecicky" (no accented letters), which matches over 20,700 Google hits, including www.edmontonjournal.com, www.hockeycanada.ca, news.yahoo.com, www.usahockey.com and indiatimes.com. The player's name is actually "Доминик Риецицкй Профиль" according to Eurohockey.com (web-link: ). Instead, I would think that User:Dolovis would agree to working on other categories of articles which need help removing the diacritical marks, to match WP:COMMONNAME spellings of words as found in many English-language sources. Also, we need to beware topic-banning people based on other people's linguistic prejudices against the English language. The fact that one WikiProject about hockey does not want to follow the English-language usage is not a reason to condemn User:Dolovis. I think this situation is another low point in the history of English Misplaced Pages: banning a helpful user who tries to convert foreign-word titles into common English form. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You realize this proposal isn't about his opinion but about his actions right? Whether he is right or wrong, its his actions that are the problem and people who behave as he has should be topic banned from the area that they are battling in and being disruptive in. And not to rehash the ever ongoing debate, but there is no consensus that commonname excludes using diacritics. In fact there is one line in commonname that actually suggests we ignore the common name if it is inaccurate, which is what people who think we should use diacritics believe is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Доминик Риецицкй is just the kyrillic version of the name. Why should his name be written in kyrillic letters when he's born in a country that simply uses the Latin alphabet? By the way... --Thomas  18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Before this goes to far afield... IIUC diacritics are useable in titles since they are generally based off of the same Latin alphabet English uses. And as best I can tell that is because an English speaker has a fighting chance of recognizing/understanding the term/word/name. Non-Latin based writing systems - kyrillic, kanji, Norse glyphs, etc - are not used because an English speaker would be SOL. Hence "Thor" not "Þórr", "Osaka" not "大阪", "War and Peace" not "Вoйнá и мир", etc. - J Greb (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikid77 states something about browsers not displaying diacritics. I've been trying to confirm this without much success. Accented letters are in character sets, including UTF-8 (which Wiki sends via headers), and ISO-8859. Not sure what Wikid77 based these claims on, but he's going to need more proof before he convinces anyone that Dolovis was acting in the best interests of users with archaic browsers. As to whether Google recognises diacritics and offers alternatives.. that's Google's problem. Wiki isn't "losing" anything if Google is failing to deliver a wider range of results – it makes no revenue from visitors.. but imo, if Wiki's search function can do it based on Javascript, Google should be able to do it with their multi-billion dollar technology. Google isn't the only search engine, and there are 5 major browsers available. It doesn't justify Dolovis' methods of making non-diacritic the primary result in many cases. I think Wikid77 is on the wrong train of thought, just because many English-speaking people only think in linear A to Z fashion, doesn't mean technology has to, and the only "low point in English Wiki" would be selfishly dismissing the written form of many nations to suit our own unambitious form. That said, I think his "strong opposition" is somewhat confused and pessimistic: WP:Hockey are not choosing to "not follow the English language". They're honouring the names of people which are native to them. The letters are not foreign just because they're accented, they're just less familiar to English speakers who don't use them – letters aren't even English. Let's not confuse "linguistic prejudice" with "helpfully converting foreign-letters", because, plain and simple, it's not a NPOV to Anglicise absolutely everything.. whether it be for English readers, crappy browsers, or sloppy search engines. Ma®©usBritish  01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but if you search for the diacritic version, google returns both the diacritic and plain text version of Tomáš Matoušek , as you'd rather expect from a truly worldwide product. Of course I use a sensible browser, but Microsoft products are still very popular throughout Europe, so I'd be surprised if their browsers wouldn't render extended Latin fonts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support because gaming the rules is simply wrong, no matter the cause; the end does not justify the means. And that behaviour, not diacritics, is the issue here. Cheers, Lindsay 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the issue of diacritics itself is irrelevant here. It's the behavior that needs to be addressed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the content issue, and Dolovis' attitude to it, is enough for a topic ban. The gaming of the system would be excuse for further action, such as a general block. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Creating stubs is not disruptive; it is quite the opposite — it is constructive. The issue of article titles is quite minor because redirects can be used for any spelling variations. Warden (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the creating of stubs. The issue is the creating of stubs with Anglicized names, against the MOS guide for Wikiproject Hockey and then also creating diacritic redirects and then making an extra edit to those redirects so the stubs made cannot be moved to them. It is explicitly gaming the system so diacritic titles cannot be used. Silverseren 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a problem with him creating stub articles, even if he refuses to use diacritics, if he wasn't also deliberately setting out to prevent other editors from moving the article to the diacritic version and leaving the plain text behind as a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Will Dolovis be able to help in restricting diacritics on North American based hockey articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the idea is to ban him from anything regarding diacritics at least that is what I see from what a few supporters have said. So he wouldn't be modifying anything that involved diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's too bad. It would've been the ideal area for Dolovis' passion. Also, I wouldn't have minded the help. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should anyone need to engage in editing that involves restricting diacritics, what encyclopedic benefit is there to following such a one-track practice except to spite languages that do use them? It is not a NPOV, it is an Anglo-centric POV, and I don't think MOS will ever change to make removal of diacritics more important than retaining them. From what I gather, more countries use diacritics, especially throughout Europe, than do not. So whether anyone likes them or not, the odds are in favour of their continued use. Removing them should not be encouraged, given that their use is not uncommon. Ma®©usBritish  19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a part of WP:HOCKEY's compromise on the usage of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's like GoodDay says. On North America-related ice hockey articles, player names with diacritics should be piped like this: ]. This is to avoid unnecessary redirecting and at the same time reflect NHL's open policy of ignoring diacritics on player jerseys, NHL web pages, etc. The exception being player articles, where diacritics are to be kept. That is the compromise. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible, and there is no strong need for that, since most editors who don't mind diacritics respect the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. And there's always you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, the ban as stated looks like it would prevent:
  • Moving pages currently at diacritic titles.
  • Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles.
  • Creating pages - primarily redirects - with diacritic titles.
  • Edits that are similar in nature to the above three.

The concerns I see beyond that which it does not address are:

• Abusing RM for pages with diacritics.
• Posts as per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Controversial moves.

That shouldn't prevent Dolovis from editing the text of articles. They should however be mindful of any consensus, guideline, or policy that applies to that article. Bluntly: If if a Project, consensus, or guideline states should be used in a particular article, removing them would be a bad idea.

It also should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate".

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope he'll be allowed to monitor the North American based hockey articles, as I have been doing (for years). GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he will be, since most NA hockey articles don't have diacritics, with the possible exception of teams (etc) from the Quebec area, where they are French-speakers, and hte French language has several diacritical letters. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that WP:HOCKEY says that all player articles should have diacritics, but when they are mentioned on North American hockey league articles diacritics should not be used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, all North American hockey leauge & team articles, shall not have'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw...

what's this supposed to be, anyways? Sure ain't Latvian... what's the point of it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

??? Don't understand the question (insufficient caffeine). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Dolovis made up his own diacritical version of the name. Looks more like Romanian than Latvian. At any rate, the Latvians seem to write the name entirely without diacritics, so there will be peace in our time—at least locally. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, neither of those diacritics appear in the Latvian alphabet. The family name Siksna is written without diacritics in Latvian. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the diffs I provided at the top of this section. Dolovis's purpose with first creating a redirect, and then edit it soon after, is to make it impossible move the original article – the one that the redirect is pointing to – over the redirect without the intervention of an admin. Doing so constitutes gaming the system, and that is why Dolovis has a page move ban since some time around July/August 2011. Since he did more such edits a second time around, he no also has a week long edit block.

Śikṣṇa seems to be a Latvian hockey player. Do you think it's misspelled?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edgars Siksna is without diacritics in Latvian (and English), and this redirect is entirely bogus. IMO it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#R3). Favonian (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is bogus, completely made up. Might as well go for Édgärs Shį́kśną or whatever... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:Brikane / IP 66.130.71.165

There has been a swathe of edits on philological / ethnological / historical articles by User:Brikane and his IP, trying to push his own personal point of view concerning the linguistic / ethnic background of various ancient peoples, which unfortunately is completely unsupported by academic research and seems to be mostly home-grown. While such contributions come up from time to time, Brikane has taken this to a level of persistence I have hardly seen before, and likes to spice it by personal slurs against other editors, first and foremost against veteran User:Nortmannus, against whom he seems to have taken a particular dislike (he further insulted him on the French WP). He has been amply warned, both on his IP and his userpage, but has neither desisted (instead opting for frequent reverts) nor provided sources for his claims, nor has he used the talk page for constructive debate. Myself and other users have been spending a considerable amount of time undoing his contributions, but I cannot say that I want to make this my hobby. It's pretty tedious. Trigaranus (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Brikane's edits, IP edits

Now blocked for edit warring, personal attacks and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Chip123456 again

This is the second time that Chip123456 (talk · contribs) has been to this board in recent days (first visit). He/she was released from a 72 hour block yesterday for edit warring - repeatedly inserting unsourced and trivial information into Chippenham railway station. Throughout the past couple of weeks the editor has been repeatedly advised by myself and others (both regular editors and admins) about the need for references and many other aspects of WIkipedia editing, yet these have nearly all been ignored. I had hoped that the block would have given the user the chance to reflect and even take up my suggestion of a spell in the Adopt-a-User programme which has previously been very successful in redeeming editors who are (or appear to be) children. Tonight the exact same list of trivial unsourced information was re-inserted into the article - albeit in prose rather than list. My suggestion would be to give this user a permanent block unless a commitment is made to spend time in the Adopt-a-User programme (or similar). --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi board! Just to let you know, on my information which I added to Chippenham about Go! cooperative last night, the info was sourced, and the other info one was in progress of finding out. I do think that Bob should nit have taken the GOCO info out as it was sourced. I'll re add the GOCO info and please see for yourself. Happy New Year. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take the time to read, you'll see that the reason the GOCO stuff was originally removed was because of concerns over reliability; other editors were concerned that primary sources talking about future plans are worth very little in an encyclopaedia, as these plans can change. You'll also see that the information is actually already in the article, under a different source. Finally, the other edit you want to introduce is completely unreferenced and can't be included until you find an appropriate source. Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Just to let you know, I understand why it was moved originally, however in the end I found a source which is now on the page, so in theory I shouldn't be in this position. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My report doesn't relate to the GOCO stuff, for which you eventually added a reference, but for the unsourced list of station facilities that you added (yet again) in this edit. I didn't remove any GOCO information, just fixed a badly formatted reference and some poor grammar. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the explanation above I did say why I added facilities, and I know why they are removed, but I do not deserve to be blocked again and to be honest with you, your GOCO tweaking as it were is wrong and I will re-edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip123456 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So, can we get rid of this, I see no need for it to be here.]

No, there is every reason for it to be here - it is about your repeated addition of unsourced information such as the list of station facilities. It could be avoided if you took a break from editing Misplaced Pages and learned how to edit - by, for example, joining the Adopt-a-User programme. You clearly need help to understand how to be a good Misplaced Pages editor and you consistently ignore or fail to acknowledge advice given by other people. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have taken it on board, which is why I added the ref to GOCO I was looking for a facilities reference, and got told that I have to find one first before I add information by another user, I have taken that on board. It's like you are trying to get me blocked for no reason and really there is no reason as I said I have started to add references and took advice on board, also please answer the questions on my talk page. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't need the something like the Adopt-a-User programme to help you address the issues that have been highlighted recently? --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The questions are on my talk page, please answer it there, not here.--Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Both User:Chip123456 and User:Bob Re-born are edit warring on Chippenham railway station without using the talk page. Using edit summaries isn't adequate for discussion. Transiently having unsourced trivia in the article will not harm Misplaced Pages; discussion of permanent block is overkill; a calm discusson is what is needed here. This edit summary indicates that Chip is at least trying, stating you clearly learned nothing is unnecessarily inflammatory. I recommend this ANI be closed without admin action. Chip, you really do need to provide sources for any additions of content. While bold is good, if another editor reverts you, do not reinsert, rather go to the article talk page and start a discussion. (see WP:BRD) Agree that WP:Adopt-a-User is a good idea. Bob, we understand your frustration but please try to be careful with the tone. Nobody Ent 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the tone of that one edit summary. I apologise. At least you understand the frustration and agree with the adopt-a-user suggestion. I still think that should be a pre-requisite to further editing. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks nobody enter, I have been trying! I'll make sure all info i add has a suitable source in the future before adding. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great. How about WP:Adopt-a-User? Nobody Ent 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I can then try to become more experienced in editing, finding sources etc. Can we close the incident thing and could you give my directions and more info about adopt a user on my talk page. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit-warring

Editors involved:

• Black.jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an ongoing edit war at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes stemming from this post by Black.jeff. Niteshift36 took exception to the post, which he sees as a personal attack. Black.jeff has made further disparaging comments such as "The statement is idiocy, that does not indicate that you are an idiot. Perhaps you think we are idiots and will believe your idiotic statement", along with comparisons to racism. He refuses to remove the comments, which I suggested he do, but Niteshift36 hasn't been blameless in all this, now resorting to edit summaries such as this. He doesn't believe that 3RR applies in this situation, claiming that he is protected by WP:BLP, while Black.jeff is now claiming that Niteshift36's removal of the offending comments is vandalism and is claiming a 3RR exemption. I'm now of the opinion that both editor's deserve a short block to allow them to cool off and all of the related comments, which have been edited since they were first added, should be removed from the talk page but, as an involved editor, it's not really appropriate for me to do that. I suspect that any attempt would also be reverted, as both editors are being rather obstinate about the whole "discussion" on my talk page. I even suggested that Niteshift36 raise the matter here, but instead he and Black.jeff have continued with their edit war. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The complaint isn't accurate. Although I disagreed with a number of insults and attacks he made, I let those go. There is one thing still at issue and it's what Aussie Legend left out. Jeff made an allegation of racism: "So your argument basically boils down to racism..." . That has been the on-going issue. I've never mentioned race. After I took exception to it, Jeff even stated on my talk page: " I know that technically it isn't racism...". After reverting my removal a couple of times, he dug up some poorly written definition from a UN project and changed his tune, claiming it was now did fit. I went so far as to tell him the proper term (cultural bias) and even inserted it in place of the incorrect and grossly offensive "racism". The allegation that my position is rooted in racism is extremely offensive to me and I will not tolerate it. Yes, I do claim BLP applies. WP:BLPTALK states: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". I am a living person. Further, it says "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...." and that is me as well. Since libelous material being removed under BLP is exempt from the 3RR, I contend this isn't a 3RR issue.

As for being uncivil etc: I won't pretend I was civil and innocent. When I get called an idiot, I tend to push back. Is it right? No, but that's not really why we are here. We are here because an editor keeps implying that I am a racist, despite the fact that he has admitted it is not correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, describing your argument, is describing content, not neccessarily you. How am I meant to point out the problem with your comment (i.e. that it is racism), if pointing out problems with it constitutes a personal attack? If what you are suggesting is the case, then WP:PA would say something more along the lings of "Do not comment on contributors, additionally do not comment on the content that that contributor contributed, as that has the potential to indicate something about them, and thus may still be regarded as a personal attack."

At first, I thought it wasn't racism, as I had thought racism only applied to race, however it is still fairly similar, a race and a country that a company belongs to, with similar principles. When you suggested cultural bias, after I explained that racism was a similar term, I then went and looked up the actual definition of racism, which includes nationality. This means that racism is the correct word. Cultural bias is nothing like it. Cultural bias is not ignoring sources just because they are from a different country, it is expecting things to be the way they are in your culture. You have used a word that sounds "nicer" yet has a completely different meaning. Additionally, personal attacks clearly have nothing to do with it, as you have no problem with leaving in the comment explaining why it is racist, you just wont let me use the word racism. If I am fine to explain why it is racism, then why can't I label it racism? If pointing out that a comment is racist is not allowed, then why do you not also remove the explanation of why it is racism? It is only that one word that you are against. You also seem to be fine with what, (going by what I assume is your logic) would basically say "you are culturally biased". That statement should also be counted as a personal attack, yet, you don't think my comment with "racism" replaced with "cultural bias" is. So you clearly do not evaluate "Your argument basically boils down to x" as "You are x". So you should not take a comment saying that your argument basically boils down to racism, as meaning you are a racist. Your only problem is with me using the word racism.

I was planning on removing my comment saying that your statement was idiocy this morning, but I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work. I will find it once I have finished this and put it in.

And yes, I will admit, I was being somewhat uncivil, however as you said, when someone pushes, I tend to push back. When it is continually explained that things are separate entities and should not be treated as the same thing, yet people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility and tell people to stop quibbling and to just move on, I will get somewhat frustrated.

Finally, we are not here because someone is implying you are a racist, we are here because you seem to despise having the term "racism" applied to anything to do with you, and as such you continually vandalise a talk page.Black.jeff (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You spent all that time, defending something that isn't even being contested. Yes, initially I took issue with your use of "idiocy" etc, but I have left those alone for days now. The SOLE thing I have removed/replaced in that time period is "racism". Cultural bias is not offensive. If I spell "honor" in the American English and then go around replacing "honour" because I want the American spelling everywhere, that is a cultural bias. Calling it cultural bias isn't an attack. However, when you say my actions stem from racism, there is no way that isn't calling me racist. Since I never mentioned race, since Australian isn't a race and since you have already admitted that it isn't racism, you insistence on putting it back in is purely an attack. As for your claim that my refusal to agree with you about a source is "pushing you"... well, I suspect that others will disagree. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just when I thought you were going to be cooperative in this, you left a lengthy new post there that added more incivility to it, as well as added some to the existing test. You refuse to act in good faith while this is under discussion. Things are becoming clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work" - You've quoted WP:TPO a number of times in the discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes. Instructions on what to do to redact your comments immediately follow that section. You don't actually need a template. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you both agree to stop trying to edit one another's comments as they already exist on the talk page, and then try to use your very best manners in discussion with each other from here forward? Because that would effortlessly solve the problem. Nothing that you're arguing about at this point, as far as I can see, will actually result in any improvement to the encyclopedia even if resolved, so it's pure disruption.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I stopped editing all but a single word. I've left the rest of his incivility intact (and even answered it with uncivil remarks at times). This is solely about his improper use of "racism". I will work most things out, but Jimbo Wales himself can come to my house and ask me personally to allow that word to be used to describe me and I won't agree to it. It is vile. It is disgusting. I will not tolerate it and nobody should suggest that I should. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless or what is or is not said about you, you should not indulge in tit-for-tat incivility. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, past the rest and ignoring it. Racism, however, is not something I will tolerate. Wikilink all the policies, guidelines and essays you want. The fact that an unfounded allegation that disgusting isn't immediately condemned is very disconcerting. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• What "racism"? The English "race" vs. the American "race"? (And he's calling someone else "idiotic"???) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Change dabs to real pages

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

Following pages should be real article pages, not dabs: monofluoride, trifluoride, tetrafluoride, pentafluoride.

See discussion here:

Please make change (I think this is an admin-y power.)

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need admin help. A disambig page is just a page you can edit to make it an article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is coded different somehow, no? TCO (Reviews needed) 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just remove the {{dab}} or {{disambiguation}} at the bottom and have at it. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban

Please see here and then: . Chesdovi (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an iban violation – it's not a revert. WP:IBAN states that editors under an interaction ban are not restricted from editing the same articles as each other, they're just not permitted to interact in any way. A revert would be an interaction, but this is not a revert. I think it's best that you stop trying to catch this guy out. Basalisk ⁄_berate 08:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you please explain this, with regards to this ban, which states you are banned from "adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed"? You came perilously close to a WP:BOOMERANG-related head injury last time. Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I was under the impression that I was unable to edit a page if the last edit was made by that other editor. With that overly cautious mindset now relaxed, I feel rather liberated. I am just sorry I was not fully aware of what the ban actually entailed to have to trouble anyone here. Regarding the adding of Category:Burials at Har HaMenuchot to the saintly Hidah of blessed memory, I believe that clause of the ban is in sink with the topic ban which only prevents me from editing on the conflict itself, meaning that only adding cats which stipulate a person as being Palestinian or Israeli would be off limits. Have a great and prosperous new year. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So...I have a problem

Over at AFC, there is a user who I highly suspect is a paid editor. Not only is their username Submissionexpert, but they have cited this website in their page submissions. I expect that they are most likely a paid editor, and even if they are not, the username is quite misleading, and I was wondering if any administrator would be willing to place some input on if they should be blocked or warned first. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no policy dealing with paid editors. There is a bried mention here in the Conflict of Interest guidelines that recommends certain behavior, but right now there is nothing expressly forbidding paid editing. If the user is being disruptive, spamming advertisements/links, or writing in a very POV manner though then that is a problem. Is anything like that going on?AerobicFox (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All true, but the first contribution I looked at was WT:Articles for creation/Cable Lugs where there are three "references" to a supplier of the product in the article, and a spam external link, and a helpful "Competitive Advantages" stub section. Let's spend a week discussing whether the editor is likely to be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like everything they've tried to create so far has been blatantly promotional. All bar one have been attempts via AFC, and they have all been rejected, and the one created directly was deleted as a copyvio. I'll keep an eye on their edits and if they repeatedly create promotional material we can act on that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Wasirg

I'm writing to report Wasirg (talk · contribs), who sole edits thus far have been to add his company to Misplaced Pages. Most of his pages have been speedy deleted, only for him to re-add them later on. Most of his pages have been listed at AfD and I've been monitoring his edits because I knew that there was a high chance of him potentially re-adding the pages or adding other pages that were promotional in nature. I noticed that today he has removed the AfD notices from articles that he's created and he's also been deprodding every article that he created. I know that he's able to do this since it's not a speedy, but I wanted to state that he's been doing everything he can in order to keep his pages on Misplaced Pages, to the point where he's been warned over his previous actions.

I want him to be blocked because he's been warned over disruptive editing and he's clearly not stopping. (See User talk:Wasirg and .)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Now blocked for continued removal of AfD banners after warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Tokyogirl, in the future, requests like this can more easily be made at WP:AIV. Erpert 07:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know - looks like a spammer, not a vandal. Hopefully he won't resume the spamming after the two days are up. Doc talk 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think he's vandalizing as much as he's just trying to spam for his company, much like Doc said. He's disruptive (in my opinion), but he hasn't really edited any other articles in a way that would be seen as vandalizing. He's added his film company to a number of pages but other than that, not really anything that could be considered vandalizing. Thank you for blocking him, BTW. Hopefully the block will kind of give him a firm shake and make him realize that he's going about all of this the wrong way. I want to consider good faith, but when you've repeatedly tried to remove AfD notices and readd pages after they've been speedied...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

1st sentence: "Akram is the son of noted scholar Md Zainul Haque and Noorjahan Khatoon." Not only is there no "note" (meaning an actual citation) for the "noted" part; there are two people listed under the one scholar credit. Maybe it was a typo. A cut and dried case of non-notable SPAM. Doc talk 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Without reading any more besides the last two comments, another option for these sorts of circumstances could be the conflict of interest noticeboard (or WP:COIN). ˜danjel 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I encourage Tokyogirl79 to open up a case at WP:COIN. They are best equipped to handle this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, as none of the stuff he's created is in any way notable and it is all pretty much certain to be deleted via PROD or Afd within the next week or so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. COIN is for subtle COI issues. AIV will tackle spammers, or it can be reported here - this is an incident requiring administrator involvement - edit warring to remove AfD templates is blockable, spam is blockable, using Misplaced Pages for advertising is blockable. Someone needs to start a conversation with him, but I'm not convinced he reads his talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need admin to revert broken change to an infobox

A recent edit at {{Infobox scientist}} has broken the template, and the admin has gone offline. Please see Template talk:Infobox scientist#Trouble displaying non-image fields. I believe that as the server's caches are refreshed, each article with this template will hide many of the fields currently shown. Examples where this has happened include Alain Connes and Bill Joy and Donald Knuth. All that's required is a quick revert—the fix can be sorted out later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What does one do when

A new user keeps adding huge images to an article which has about twenty lines in it? See Matías Di Gregorio Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. I'll keep an eye on it. On a different note, you are a bit too liberal with the "vandalism"-button. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, hit the wrong one, was going for rollback. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a matter for AN/I if a user is being disruptive and edit warring which this user clearly seems to be doing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. I only posted here as I was unsure were else I should ) The guy is new and obviously a fan, I figured if a few users let him know what he ought not do then he would perhaps listen. I think it has worked. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like the user in question reverted you 3 times, that's the line for edit warring. A user behaving like that is certainly an issue for AN/I, and I have no idea why Seb is claiming otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Because that would be an issue for WP:AN/EW, I believe? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount

I'm currently engaged in a dispute with User:Volunteer Marek and suggested to ask for a WP:3O to solve the ongoing discussion. 5 minutes after I made the suggestion to ask for a third opinion User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time and made a short comment. As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me, I continued and started a 3O request. Molobo immediately followed me up and pointed out that there are more than just two editors engaged in the dispute (the third one is him), thus the 3O request was declined. MyMoloboaccount, who has a long tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek (formerly User:Radeksz), obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request and a fast adjustment. MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR, their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I added my view way earlier than any request by Herkus for 30, also I commented and edited on that issue already on 3rd December 2011 so I am certainly not foreign to the topic discussed.obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request A very striking show of bad faith, especially since I edited the article and the issue months before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me This is incorrect. These two edits show that dispute was already in place before in December

So I was engaged in this already and commented as soon as I could, when it came to the main discussion page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

• User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time - not true. Even a cursory look at the talk page shows that MMA was quite active on the article's talk page before.
• MyMoloboaccount, who has along tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek - false, unsubstantiated accusation. The link provided by HM shows nothing of the kind. This is a kind of baseless attack that should invite a WP:BOOMERANG.
• to disrupt the request - there was nothing disruptive here. It looks like the rationale was agreed with by a person at 3O: .
• MMA noted his disagreement with HM, before (15:55) HM filed the 3O request (16:05).
• MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR - bullshit, pretty much outright lying. There was no 3RR here. At best, even if you count our reverts as that of one person, that'd be two reverts on Jan 2. One by me. One by MMA - noting his disagreement with HM, per WP:BOLD. If HM honestly thinks this was a 3RR violation, then take it to 3RR board. Otherwise, stop making stuff up.
• their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version - there was no "cooperative editing" here. Evidence? It's an article that both of us have edited before. We happen to agree on an issue. HM doesn't like this. So he's making groundless accusations.

This is exactly the kind of bad-faithed request which blatantly misrepresents a situation that WP:BOOMERANG was written for.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA was not involved in the current dispute before I suggested a 3O request, he appeared 5 minutes after and "torpedoed" the request within minutes.

MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version

To push opponents into 3RR was a proven method of the WP:EEML ("circumvent" is an imprecise term for that, sorry)

I don't think VM is seriously denying his and MMA's membership in the EEML, the underlying battleground mentality seems to reappear here.

It's hard to assume good faith facing such a way to deal with "opponents". HerkusMonte (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version - again, plainly false. Need I point out that *I* am the one who had to initiate talk page discussion on this topic , after you started going through and reverting my edits across several articles without so much as an explanation (except perhaps the insulting "POVpushing")? It really takes some gall for someone who doesn't even bother to discuss issues on talk unless forced to do so to accuse others of not wanting to "resolve the dispute".

I don't think VM is seriously denying ... blah blah blah. Crying "witch", poisoning the well, and trying to smear editors one has a content disagreement with is a time honored tactic of bad faithed pov pushers everywhere. The underlying battleground mentality is the one that is still trying to win some battle from three or four years ago Herkus.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA was not involved in the current dispute before Again incorrect Herkus.

• Revision as of 16:31, 3 December 2011 MyMoloboaccount (minor, Poles were missing in the description]-- So I already pointed out this issue on 3rd December 2011, as to the rest that's a whole lot of baseless bad faith attacks.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A single edit a month ago is not part of the current discussion. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the same issue, same topic, same edit discussed. It concerns the same subject and the same debate. So sorry but it completely discredits your bad faith accusations that I "suddenly" came to the discussion. I was interested in this issue for a long time--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:ChristianHistory against me, User:R-41

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

ChristianHistory blocked indefinitely by MastCell. See sections below about a consensus on a topic ban that would have to be taken into consideration if an unblock is requested. NW (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ChristianHistory has engaged in slanderous personal attacks against me, including accusing me of being racist without evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that called me a "lover of lies", and has insinuated that I am part of a "conspiracy" of anti-fascists intending to discredit fascism. See the "January 2012" section of the talk page for this: . User:Rivertorch told ChristianHistory that he/she was engaged in personal attacks against me, before I was alerted by Rivertorch about ChristianHistory's personal attacks. Now ChristianHistory will respond that I have been slanderous to him, saying that I am accusing him of being anti-Semitic and a neo-Nazi. This is based on a discussion on the Talk:Fascism#Secondary_sources article where ChristianHistory accused the article of being biased in favour of allegedly "unreliable" Jewish, American, and British scholars, and stated that there was a Jewish and anti-fascist conspiracy to discredit fascism, I assumed that he may have been a neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic fascist attempting to force a change in the article involving removal of Jewish, or allegedly "anti-fascist" sources. Many users on the Fascism talk page held a similar view on ChristianHistory and condemned her/his propositions as being prejudiced, to which ChristianHistory refused to partake in cooperative discussion and responded in bellicose aggressive manner to them. I entered the discussion by stating that ChristianHistory was not being cooperative to other users, was promoting the removal of Jewish, British, and American scholars' information based on a prejudiced and xenophobic view of them as being automatically "unreliable" sources based on their culture. I stated that further discussion with ChristianHistory was pointless and that the section should be considered as a soapbox, as ChristianHistory refused to listen to the criticisms of other users and was determined to force the issue on the article. ChristianHistory accusing me of being racist with no evidence, being a "lover of lies", and being part of a conspiracy is very slanderous, and he/she was warned previously by Rivertorch not to proceed in this manner, I suggest that disciplinary action be taken by Misplaced Pages administrators on ChristianHistory for her/his blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's policy of opposition to personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time for a long winded argument. R-41 has already taken up much of my day. Any honest person can see R-41 doesn't care to follow the NPA guidelines he pretends to uphold. According to him, anyone who challenges unsourced, unfounded, and contradictory claims is an "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi". --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ChristianHistory, given that you started the relevant talk page section with an implication that someone being Jewish was sufficient grounds to discount their material as "propaganda and nonsense" , I'd say that suggestions that you are an antisemite are entirely reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't hold Jews to be a "race", so I don't know how I can be "anti-Semitic". Besides Arabs, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. are Semites, so what does Semitism have to do with anything? --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know what anti-Semitism is. We have an article about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically if Jews are a race, then I'm a racist. And if Jews aren't a race, I'm still a racist. That's so convenient, isn't it? The whole "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi" label is just a bunch of crap used to silence discussion and weed out those who dare to oppose the majority of editors on clearly slanted propaganda pieces that is the article on Fascism. See my talk page for responses to the other accusations. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that users are addressing the issue of claims of anti-Semitism here involving her/his extremely controversial proposal on the Talk:Fascism article to discount sources written by Jewish, British, and American scholars. But please, let's get back to the point of ChristianHistory's personal attacks, he/she has called me a racist with no evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that I am a "lover of lies", and the insinuation that I am part of an anti-fascist "conspiracy".--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff's unacceptable too. Actually, given the nature of Fascism, I'd venture to say that being pro-fascist would be the aberrant position, and being "anti-fascist" would be neutral. That, the call to replace reliable sourcess (because they don't support Hitler and Mussolini) with original research based on fascist sources, and the personal attacks all add up to a problematic editor. I'm inclined to suggest a topic and interaction ban, thought I don't have the wording for it yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I lost my response again because apparently R-41 doesn't know how to proof-read anything he/she/it writes and has to keep editing his/her/its responses over and over again. And point proven with Ian's last response -- this has nothing to do with attacks, and everything to do with politics and POV. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two issues: 1) The antisemitic comments, which include both the proposal that sources written by Jewish authors cannot be used as secondary sources for the Fascism article, as well as other veiled comments ("I think what we have is more of a confirmatory and Ingroup bias on the part of certain people. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll figure out who eventually."), and 2) the personal attack made against R-41 here immediately after being warned not to do so. Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And now Singularity decides to join in the lying too. And yes, I say lying since you were on my talk page and have read it, so you know better. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I identified the two issues that have been raised in this thread. In any event, I specifically linked to the diffs in question. Where exactly have I "lied"? Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)No, ChristianHistory, you calling him a racist for having a problem with Nazis is a serious problem. R-41 called for the exclusion of fascist propaganda, which is in line with WP:NPOV (and indirectly with WP:NOR). You have been calling for the exclusion of British, American, and Jewish sources because of their heritage. That's racist. If R-41 had said "no German or Italian sources" that would be a problem, but he didn't say that. If you had said "no Communist sources," that wouldn't be racist. But you said "British, American, and Jewish" sources, which excludes them based on their heritage, not their politics.

Also, I'd like to propose a topic ban: It seems that it would be best if ChristianHistorian stay away from articles pertaining to Fascism, and should probably avoid topics relating to Jews and Judaism as well. Given his focus on hagiography, I wouldn't suggest blocking him from that, so by "relating to Judaism," I mean directly related to the Jewish religion, people, or culture, except in areas which overlap with Christianity (which may be edited provided the edits affect the Christian content of the article).

EDIT: This is just a minimum proposal. Expanding to "banned from all modern political topics" would be another option. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond antisemitism, which is obvious, this diff displays some critical misunderstandings of our sourcing requirements, especially WP:PRIMARY. If ChristianHistory wants to take other people's opinions into account then I'd oppose a topic ban, but if he goes on arguing then there might not be any other option. An anti-semite can edit Misplaced Pages constructively, but saying that any source written by a Jew is unreliable is not going to get off the ground here. (It's painful that I have to say that in 2011 2012.) causa sui (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

psst, happy new year, causa sui. Cheers, Lindsay 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Singularity, you reiterate the lie when you say that I wanted all Jewish, British, and American sources removed -- see my talk page (again). Ian: 'Jewish', 'British', and 'American' is not a race so how can it be "racism"? See my talk page. And you know what, I'm getting really tired of this FALSE, CALUMNIATING "anti-Semitism" label. I propose every one of you be banned. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen your talk page. You are implying they should be exclude because of what culture were born in, instead of what political views they adopted later in life. If you weren't, there would have been no point in mentioning the nationality of the authors. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now ChristianHistory has accused User:Singularity42 of lying. As everyone can now see, ChristianHistory is totally out of control, he/she is slandering anyone who is in disagreement with her/him as liars. This is complete contempt for Misplaced Pages's guidelines - especially for ChristianHistory to have the audacity to make a personal attack against a user investigating personal attacks made by ChristianHistory against another (me, R-41). I support that ChristianHistory be completely banned from Misplaced Pages, he/she has no intention of upholding Misplaced Pages guidelines at all.--R-41 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I should point out, as the one accused of "lying" by ChristianHistory, I would nonetheless not be in support of such a drastic move. I'm more inclined to support a limited topic ban along the lines of what is being proposed, as well as perhaps a "one strike" rule for further personal attacks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look just a few sections above this, one minute after I posted that ChristianHistory has accused Singularity42 of lying, now ChristianHistory is saying: "I propose every one of you be banned". ChristianHistory is totally out of control and is slandering everyone who has disagreed with her/him. ChristianHistory has used up his strikes, he has attacked "every one" who disagrees with him. I urge administrators to completely ban ChristianHistory from Misplaced Pages and that he/she not be permitted to return to Misplaced Pages - he has completely and utterly defiled Misplaced Pages guidelines.--R-41 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? He's behaving inappropriately but he's not posing any kind of imminent danger. It's too soon for a full ban and doing it now would just be punitive. Let's make some effort shall we? causa sui (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He just removed this that I criticized him for adding minutes ago to cover up evidence that he is slandering many people, this is what he said:

"Singularity, you reiterate the lie when you say that I wanted all Jewish, British, and American sources removed -- see my talk page (again). Ian: 'Jewish', 'British', and 'American' is not a race so how can it be "racism"? See my talk page. And you know what, I'm getting really tired of this FALSE, CALUMNIATING "anti-Semitism" label. I propose every one of you be banned. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)"

My mistake, another user added a section below it, I lost track of where it was, it is still there, my mistake.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete that from here, check the history. R-41's agenda is purely political. At least I'm straightforward. R-41 is acting like a deceitful politician, with pretended outrage to get me booted. He just sees me as a "threat" to Misplaced Pages, like I'm a big bad Nazi out to devour him and all Misplaced Pages content. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I just said above your statement that I made a mistake, you are correct, you did not remove it. But you are in no position to criticize me for ill intention, you have just stated "I propose every one of you be banned" and you have ignored the multiple statements in this section by users. You have shown complete contempt towards every user in this discussion.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To ChristianHistory: I fail to see how I misrepresnted what you proposed. Throughout Talk:Fascism#Secondary sources, you stated that post-war Jewish, American, and British acholars are not reliable for the topic of Fascism.

To Ian.thomson: I think your original topic ban is in the right track. The alternative "all modern political topics" seems to broadly worded for what we're dealing with here. I would also suggest a "one-strike" rule for future personal attacks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• On another point, I think ChristianHistory's comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage are quite inappropriate. We need less of that. If there's been any initial baiting which leads ChristianHistory to such comments, then the baiting would be inappropriate too, but I didn't see any in my brief glance round... bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Singularity. ChristianHistory definitely isn't responding well to counseling and the disruption is severe enough that we shouldn't let it continue. Is it time for a straw poll now? causa sui (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm assuming "one-strike" means "block for any future attacks," and not "given one warning for future attacks and then blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will agree with Singularity 42's proposal for a topic ban and "one-strike" rule. As I am the person who brought forward the issue, I don't think a vote by me would count, nor should count - I leave it up to you, but I am just stating that I support Singularity42's proposal.--R-41 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not necessary for "discrediting" fascism - Hitler and Musollini did a pretty good job of doing that, all by themselves. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could there be a clarification of what articles "related to Fascism" implies? Just so it is clearly known what this means.--R-41 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I meant: at large, fascist governments in theory or practice, and their advocates, critics, practitioners, opposers, or victims; except the people are notable for other issues (e.g. Pope John Paul II), provided the content is not related to fascism, and the legacies of the previously mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that. He shouldn't be editing anything connected with religion or politics. If he wants to edit articles about basket-weaving, that might be safe. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree (I hsve not been shown evidence he should be banned from articles on hagiographies where Jews are not mentioned), I don't think that's as likely to get through. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Since he's now indef'd as a probable sock, we likely don't need to worry about a topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently I'm involved in this, since it spilled over onto my talk page. While a topic ban for ChristianHistory might be helpful in theory, I'm concerned that it wouldn't solve anything. ChristianHistory began editing under that username less than two weeks ago but claims to have "been here for over four years" and clearly has a working knowledge of WP. Whether he or she was editing as an IP or under a different account, I have no idea. Taking AGF to extremes, the best I can assume is gross incompetence; otherwise, he or she appears to be abusing multiple accounts or being deliberately disruptive or both. Clearly, he or she has an agenda that is at odds with our core policies, and close watching is warranted. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the IP address of ChristianHistory be checked to see if he/she has abused multiple accounts (a.k.a. sockpuppetry).--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To Rivertorch: Hm... yeah, that is concerning. If anyone knows of a previous user whose behavior resembles his, it'd be nice to know. He tends to hang in areas I'm not usually present in, so I couldn't recognize any MO if I looked.

To R-41: From my understanding of the SPI guidelines, we need more evidence, like similar behavior with another account. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand this. An investigation of banned users who have participated in the same material edited by ChristianHistory would likely determine if ChristianHistory is abusing multiple accounts. Typically a banned user who abuses accounts will open a new account shortly after one has been banned, so perhaps an investigation of recently banned users partaking in editing of similar material as ChristianHistory has.--R-41 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for ChristianHistory

ChristianHistory may no longer edit articles relating to Fascism, and may not edit any articles concerning the Jewish people, culture, or religion, except where such articles overlap with non-Jewish content and then only to edit the non-Jewish content. Furthermore, he is under a "one-strike" rule on any future personal attacks, and will be blocked if he makes any more. EDIT: "relating to fascism" refers to articles at large which concern fascist governments in theory or practice, their advocates, critics, practitioners, opposers, or victims; except the people are notable for other issues (e.g. Pope John Paul II), provided the content is not related to fascism; as well as the legacy of the previously mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Given his inability to accept that he has made attacks against other editors, his call to violate WP:NOR on Fascism, and his inability to respect Jews; some action is needed, but given that he is otherwise useful a complete community ban is not needed. Hopefully, I should not need to have said "not needed yet." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The editor clearly has no business editing anything remotely connected with religion or politics. His attitude also shames his user ID, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - doesn't even accept that he has done wrong, let alone that he will change his ways. GiantSnowman 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously needed causa sui (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as the minimum necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - for the reasons already given -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support but am dubious it will work, per my comment above. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm dubious that it will have any benefit as I think this guy is clearly on a crusade, but this is the first step to putting an end to this, and put an end to it we must. This is disgraceful behaviour. Basalisk ⁄_berate 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but also urge calmness from all: ChristianHistory is out of control but not "totally." There are no grounds to institute a sock-puppet investigation. Yopienso (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support though I agree with others that this may be a temporary solution before more drastic measures are needed. Yopienso thank your for removing the bolding as it is not needed and often leads to the opposite of what is being demanded. CH own words are why a sockpuppet investigation may be necessary. Though, I fear, it will be hard to find any one editor who this might be. This kind of editing goes back at least as far as User:Fourdee if not further and is a mind set about what is and isn't racism/hatred etc. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) My bolding was a typo--accidental double instead of single quotes after "Support." Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Oblivious. Labeling Singularity42/Direktor indicates trouble with issues. Glrx (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom - we cannot allow such behavior to disrupt the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Let's cut this short. I've indefinitely blocked ChristianHistory (talk · contribs). First of all, this editor claims to have been editing for four years, using various other accounts. If that's the case, then his abject disregard for this site's content and sourcing policies is likely intractable. On top of that, in this account's short history it's provided a laundry list of virtually every sort of behavior that Misplaced Pages needs less of.

  Personally, the combativeness, soapboxing, and agenda (that Mussolini, Hitler, and fascism are "misunderstood") are strongly reminiscent of Billy Ego (talk · contribs), a prolific sockpuppeteer banned for, among other things, his incessant pro-fascist advocacy. The Billy Ego accounts are likely way too stale for a checkuser, and I think the point is largely academic since there are ample grounds for a block in this account's edits, even taken in isolation.

  If another admin wishes to unblock ChristianHistory, then they have my permission so long as the terms of the unblock include the topic ban described above. But I really think we've already spent enough time on this. It's clear this editor is here for the wrong reasons, and if he hasn't learned in 4 years (and is continuing to create new accounts to troll others on the basis of his political and racial viewpoints), then he's never going to learn. MastCell  00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. I'm going to close this; I don't think we need to waste any additional discussion time on it. NW (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Darkness Shines after warning at ANI

Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Darkness Shines are escalating even more after he was warned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Personal attacks from IP editor for the same. I reported him for his edit war on multiple pages which got protected as a result and also told an administrator about the report, who was previously called in for intervention on one of the articles and was keeping a check on the content dispute. Now this personal attack he very recently made on me at another user's talk page is out right blatant . How much more for enough? (Note that this report is strictly for personal attacks lest all the disputed content start spilling here). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TG, go have a nice cup of tea, I believe the stress is getting to you. Cheerio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The next person who makes a personal attack, who goads another editor, who hounds another editor's contributions, or generally acts distuptively in this dispute will be blocked. I really mean it. I'm getting sick of people acting like 12 year olds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the efforts made by Magog the Ogre on this long-running dispute about topics involving Pakistan and India, I suggest that other admins may want to support his efforts. With some frustration I closed a 3RR case recently involving some of these editors. Because so many people were behaving badly and not waiting for consensus, no blocks seemed logical at that time. In the future, persistent warring and bad behavior across a range of articles is certainly worth taking admin action on, and I hope that Magog will advise on what further measures he thinks advisable. Already one of the editors involved, User:JCAla, has requested that Magog disqualify himself from further admin action regarding him. In my view JCAla should get extra credit for chutzpah. A set of community topic bans for all the editors involved in the recent 3RR report is one of the options to consider for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal for atleast one article which is the main point of contention: Talk:Taliban#Consensus by community to enforce 1RR on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV pushing by User:Plot Spoiler

Before any edit war starts, that can get me banned, I wish to seek involvement of administrators in what I see as a serious issue of bias and double standards on such an unacceptable level, by a user named Plot Spoiler, who, BTW, is in violation of the 3RR with this edit. The dispute evolves around a raid carried out by Iraqi security forces against the Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist group. Referring to a raid by American, British, French, or Israeli forces against a group such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban or Hamas, in which only members of this terrorist organisation were killed, as a "massacre" or a "mass-muder" would be completely unacceptable (and I there is not one example of such labeling in Misplaced Pages) and thus the same standards should be applied to a terrorist group that targets Iranians and Iraqis. He also insists on removing the sourced fact that the group is designated as a terrorist organisation by Iran, Iraq and the United States from the beginning of the article, and as I said, he is in violantion of the 3RR. Looking at the category page "Category:Mass murder in 2011" you can also see that the articles listed are soley terrorist attacks/bombings or random civilian shootings, not a single article about a government raid against a militant/insurgent group is listed in there and if we look at "Category:Massacres in Iraq," we can see the Iraqi security forces raid against the terrorist camp is equally out of place. It is clear the user in question will not compromise or let necessary edits be done and therefore I will not touch the article as to prevent and edit war, and instead call on administrators need to intervene.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OP is forum shopping. Oh, and I have notified the user about these threads. GiantSnowman 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know exactly what was the right forum to post it. This one or the general one?Kermanshahi (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the Kermanshahi's 3RR complaint against Plot Spoiler with a warning to both parties. Kermanshahi should be aware that forum shopping won't win any more support for his case (going to 3RR + AN + ANI). The steps of dispute resolution are open to you. If you want to try opening an WP:RFC to get more opinions let me know if you need any assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's Internet death rumour is Fidel Castro

His death is suddenly trending on Twitter, but it seems to be nothing but an Internet rumour at this point. The last time we had an Internet rumour on NYE - Robert Plant in that case - semi-protection wasn't adequate to protect the article (autoconfirmed editors were the culprits), so I'd ask people who hang around here to keep an eye on Fidel Castro before an actual incident report needs to be filed. (I know this isn't an incident yet, but it's a heavily watched board so it seemed the right place.) --NellieBly (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, the page is already semiprotected, so there likely won't be as much vandalism as there would be without anything at all. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly vandalism; it's disruptive, but the editors are adding the information in good faith. They're just so intent on being first that they forget the consequences of being first with the wrong information. --NellieBly (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary rumor: It may be related to a computer virus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More harassment by user:JesseRafe

Previous ANI discussion

I recently reported user:JesseRafe here for wikistalking me, after he followed me around reverting my edits and referring to them as vandalism in his edit summaries. It was explained to him during the original discussion here that edits are not vandalism simply because he does not like them. I also posted a notice to his page about accusing other editors of vandalism without good cause. Now, he has gone to the talk pages of 5 different editors (so far) and told them individually that I am a vandal and to keep an eye on the page in dispute (presumably so he can circumvent 3rr by having others undo my edits for him, by misleading them into believing that I am a vandal). This is clearly harassment.

The original notice I posted to his page about not calling constructive editors vandals:

The original complaint about his harassing behaviour:

His recent edits to users talk pages telling them that I am vandalising a page they have contributed to: . 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on closing comments at previous discussion and Jesse's subsequent behavior, in my view, a block is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has refused consensus, compromise and civility, and to boot, has resorted to wiki-stalking me! The charge he or she initially and unfoundedly levied upon me, going out of his or her way to edit articles and undo changes I have made on articles I have years of history editing. This is absurd that I should be the one blocked, look at how unnecessary this user's edits have been and poorly formatted/lazy they are to alphabetize a list, yet they have the time to follow me around the internet. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are running all over Misplaced Pages labeling the editor a vandal after being told not to use that term unless it clearly applied because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting entire referenced sections is not vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate What else would I call it? Notice in the history 1) that many other editors undid the anon IP's edits, and 2) the anon IP's uncivil discourse towards other editors - and I, a trusted, long-time editor should be the one to be banned? Are you serious? JesseRafe (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted referenced material. Only unreferenced material. I'm not being uncivil. You are being uncivil by calling me a vandal and lazy. Other editors only undid my edits after you falsely called them vandalism in an edit summary, giving people the impression that they ought to be reverted. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate. You have reverted material with citations. Here's one example: . --Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read those links you'll see that nowhere do any of them mention nominative determinism. All they do is mention the existence of the persons listed, they do not say anything about their names leading to their professions, so they are not references for nominative determinism. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, if you read the article you would see it said it was a theory that it could be, and thus these were examples, no one ever said it was a fact that their names caused their professions. Just examples of people whom the application of the theory could be applied to. And there mere existence is a primary source, so they belong to be entered on the page. JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that part of policy doesn't support your position. The IP is not removing material without explaining why. Vandalism of that sort is usually clearly destructive (a silent removal of sourced material, for example). Also, I might point out that both you and the IP are edit-warring in the Nominative determinism article, and each of you has already violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the overall issue, but to comment only on the disputed content at the Nominative determinism article - I was looking at that article and I agree with the IPs removal - there is a OR issue there and Jesse is replacing with a reason of self-evident examples of a theory. The article intro states, "a person's name can have a significant role in determining key aspects of job, profession or even character." and then there is a list of uncited names that no one has made this association about in a reliable source. Youreallycan (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, your attitude toward the IP is condescending. First, you continually refer to him as an "anon IP", which is redundant and can only serve to emphasize that s/he is not registered. Second, you call yourself a "trusted, long-time editor", which actually doesn't help you as, if anything, you should be held to a higher standard for understanding Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Finally, although the issues may be interrelated, the block (not "ban") you deserve, in my view, is separate from any possible sanction against the IP, but, thus far, the only thing I see is edit-warring, which you are equally guilty of.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely true, when the IP made the unfounded allegations the other day I stopped out of the 3RR rule. The edits today were new edits, first based on wholesale content removal by IP and then by me with a selective amount of content restored, i.e. I didn't merely undo, but pared the list down. The IP is just continuing to delete on principle. And also, might I add, he or she is ironically enough wikistalking me, randomly undoing some of my edits on other pages, such as Ghost Dog. I'll stop using the label vandal, but is that really the problem here? Not the arrogance of the IP to insult and curse at other editors and ignore consensus? JesseRafe (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All I did was provide a reference for a previously uncited fact in the article... A reference you promptly deleted on the grounds that it was "sloppy". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's provably false. I undid someone else's unconstructive edit that was in poor style and not well said, and you undid my edit of that (assumedly out of spite, i.e. wikistalking because you had never edited that article before) and you undid that with a citation, but I did not remove the content because it was uncited, but because that information did not belong in the soundtracl area and in fact, already was in the right place of the article in the cast section.JesseRafe (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I count 4 reverts by you today for the purpose of the rule (and there's always edit-warring even without the rule). Stop focusing on what IP has done and focus on what you did before the first ANI topic and then in between the close of that topic and the opening of this one. How could you so quickly ignore the counsel of so many editors not to use the vandal label?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, have you actually looked at the edit history? The IP just says "fuck yourself" to me in an edit summary undoing my edit for the first time (which is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used) and then you cite IDHT to me to admonish me? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. The IP refuses to get the point, because while I was away from wikipedia during the holidays no less than 3 other editors undid IP's edits only for the IP to undo them again. So which of us is not getting the point about the status of this article? And who deserves the ban? I can't believe the IP was able to manipulate this into being about me? Look at my edits, I don't engage in edit warring, but do a lot of work fixing vandalism and making underserved articles much better. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The "fuck yourself" comment is old and was part of the first ANI topic. The IP was admonished not to attack editors during the topic. Yet, the IP has not ignored that admonishment. OTOH, you have ignored the counsel of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I told you to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive edits as vandalism in an edit summary. How can you possibly claim that it "is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used". The language was used after you called me a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I assume the 2 (which is less than 3) editors that reverted me did so at least partially based on the fact that you called me a vandal, and they assumed that you wouldn't have called me a vandal without first checking to see whether I was or not. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm more than a little offended this is still happening. Look at the IP's talk page, and how he or she has a history of edit warring and warnings for other articles. Why has no warning been put there for this time? Why am I the only one targeted by the IP's viscous character attack? This is absurd that he or she breaks multiple rules and I try to maintain the integrity of wikipedia, but the IP complains first and loudest and gets what they want. JesseRafe (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're going in circles. I'll let other editors weigh in on your conduct and your self-deflecting complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I commented at the last ANI discussion of this issue (to the effect that the IP is right and that JesseRafe has incorrectly used "vandal"). It is disappointing that JesseRafe shows no signs of understanding what multiple editors have tried to explain, and something needs to happen to ensure the IP is left to continue their good edits unhindered (I haven't checked many of their edits, just enough to see that the IP is at least sometimes correct, and I don't see any credible claims of a bad edit). JesseRafe has unfortunately got a little personally involved in the dispute (hint: adding unsourced examples because they are "self-evident examples" is original research—has a secondary source examined all the people named "Fish" and determined whether an unusual proportion of them are marine biologists?). Can we agree that the matter is too trivial to warrant a formal interaction ban, but there must be no further interference. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

John, this is completely Kafkaesque. As I explained before I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me and selectively (not systematically) examined some of the IP edits (because how could I know it was even one person?) and then undid some of his other more spurious edits. Then, the IP began wikistalking me! I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there. And I long ago apologized for calling him a vandal. I apparently misunderstood that blanking entire sections is not considered vandalism anymore. Also, please note that this IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits, and the IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not. What is the issue? OK, he's not a vandal, but he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus. Let's focus on the big picture and what needs to be done to stop disruption. JesseRafe (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• "I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me". No. I cursed at you after you called me a vandal in an edit summary where you reverted one of my constructive edits.

• "I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there". You need to read WP:OWN. I didn't undo any of your edits. You removed some material, which I then tracked down a reference for, and reinserted with the reference. I did not do this out of spite. You then deleted the reference.
• "IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits". Other editors reverted my edits (once each) after you falsely marked my edits as vandalism.
• "IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not". I have warned you for edit warring, and you immediately removed the warnings.
• "he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus". Consensus and "the version you want" are not the same thing. By your logic, you need to be blocked because you ignore WP:OR and WP:CIV. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem, that you completely miscategorize my edits and libel me on these boards and admins who only superficially examine the issue somehow get fooled by your conniving.

1. I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed. Your edit appeared to be vandalism as it was unexplained wanton deletion. I apologized for this multiple times. Furthermore, one instance of a simple mistake does not warrant being told "to go fuck self" -- that's the most clear and egregious breach of wikipedia policy committed by either of us.

2. Your defense about Ghost Dog is so wrong it's almost funny. You did follow me there, how can you say you didn't? And you did undo my edits. I deleted it because it was spurious unencyclopedic content and I deleted it before I even knew it was the same person (again, you're using an anonymous IP address - how can I know who you are or bother to memorize a long string of random numbers?). I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack).

3. It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself, whether or not they independently found your edits inappropriate (likely) or based on my say-so (which is doubtful, as must editors examine a page's changes before reverting).

4. I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits. It's the version of the article they want too. You're the only one who doesn't understand consensus is not the version that they themselves want. And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research. And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on. JesseRafe (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Block request for user:Meryam90

Reference to the page Don2 http://en.wikipedia.org/Don_2:_The_King_is_Back and its discussion page .

The user Meryam90 (talk) is totally unaware of wikipedia guidelines and the meaning of the word vandalism . She has been warned by many wiki editors in the past about her continuous use of removal of others comments citing vandalism . She is the editor at Don2 page and is so ridiculous that she wants to use a tweet of the worst trade expert in India - Taran Adarsh and his pathetic site "bollywoodhungama.com" for reporting box-office collections . Consensus on the SOLE USE of BoxofficeIndia.com (BOI)- the premier site on box-office collections in India has been made long ago ; and every Bollywood movie (hindi movie ) main infobox uses BOI numbers . So using any other site or especially a tweet on the twitter-networking site from a useless trade analyst is highly unacceptable and lame . Moreover , if you observe the view history of that article closely , you can easily see that the editor is making personal comments on me and using vandalism as a totally unnecessary tool here . I deleted the BO-figures n gross from the info-box and she starts harrassing and attacking me after undoing my edits . She seems to be a huge Shah Rukh Khan( a bollywood actor ) fangirl who wants to control his every film article . So , it happens to be the obvious case here , that the INFOBOX on his 2 latest movies reads box-office numbers from useless sites other than BOI. First , she abused all editors on the Raone discussion page regarding bo figures (btw which are still not according to BOI ) and now in case of Don2 she wants to degrade the standards of Misplaced Pages by using a lame tweet for box-office figures that too in main infobox .

So , Ra.one and Don2 (both ShahRukhKhan movies ) have now become the only movies in Hindi cinema that are using pathetic and lame sources other than BOI ; whereas all other (THOUSANDS OF )movies use BOI . This is unfair to all those movies .

So , i request an immediate BLOCK for this user for spoiling the integrity of Misplaced Pages for giving out box-office collections for hindi films FROM FAKE SITES as well as for using vandalism as an unnecessary tool for deleting and undoing others edts plus attacking me .

Thanks .Seeta mayya (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards