Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 3 March 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)

• 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?

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that following his comments above, User:Stefanomione continues to depopulate Category:Freudian psychology. The affected articles are essays, not books, and appear to have been correctly categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some time before you posted this comment, I created Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud ... you caught me in a work of progress .... Stefanomione (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Stefanomione's primary editing contribution is the creation of categories. While this is an important part of Misplaced Pages, I've also noticed an unacceptably large number of those categories are inappropriate and subsequently brought to CfD (look at his talk page!). I would recommend some kind of community sanction where any new category this user proposes must be discussed first, perhaps at WP:CATP. This would cut down on the massive strain this user puts on other editors trying to clean up after him. After all, it's much easier to create a category than to delete it, so this minor filter would dramatically improve the quality of the categories he produces. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • A few hours ago, while depopulating Category:Freudian psychology,I created Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis and Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud. This made the category less confusing (it contained/contains Books/Essays/Terminology/Institutions/People/Criticists/Criticism/Related topics/ ... The Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud - which I created earlier today and is not tagged as CfD - helps, I think, to bring a rapid access to theories really conceived by Sigmund Freud himself. Stefanomione (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
  And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, you just caught me in a work of progress: around the same time, I created and populated Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis, Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud and Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud, none of them CfD. Misplaced Pages is not "too much work", it is a work in progress. Stefanomione (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is the problem in a nutshell. You were in the process of creating a structure, and even when you knew that the existence of the whole structure was being challenged, you went ahead anyway. That's plain disruptive. The proper way to behave is that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but when that boldness is challenged we stop and discuss. You simply don't seem able to grasp this, which is why I support blocking you from category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. I would like to keep the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Why do you need automated tools to have discussions with other editors on talk pages? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Those statistics are kinda horrifying. Stefanominome has created no less than 180 categories which have been deleted, and doesn't see a problem? Another 210 renamed, and again no problem? Really?
  This is a contemptuous attitude to the time of other editors, who would also like to be doing other things on Misplaced Pages rather than tidying up after this editor. A total of 390 categories changed at CFD. Let's assume that there was some grouping of the CFDs, and generously assume an average of 5 categories per discussion; that means that Stefanomione's categories have been the subject of 80 CFD discussions. Each one of those discussions involves a lot of work by the nominator (a group nom is a lot of work to set up), more contributions from editors who participate in the CFDs, and then a closing admin has pass the instructions to the CFD bot. After that, watchlists get beaten up as every individual article is edited by the bot.
  Enough already. Time to require this editor to gain consensus before category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stefanomione's numbers suggest a 15% error rate, not 6.1%. But more importantly, the other 85% are not pristine. There are many places he has created categories where I have looked at them and thought, "Wow, this is going to be a nightmare to sort out," and just haven't had the time to nominate them. So just because we haven't put more than400 categories of his through the discussion process is no reason to believe the other categories are safe from problems. Now, here's the good news: When given direction, Stefanomione is more than happy to do the work himself. So once the creation ban is in place, it seems possible to imagine that he would be very helpful dealing with the issues that he has created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 85 % not pristine ? Could you give some examples ? What I see: the 1800 categories I created in 2005-2010 still expanded and completed with subcategories - Only four of them put on CfRenaming in 2011-2012, despite the incredible crowd intelligence of the wikipedians. Anyway, it's true, Mike: I'm eager to do the reparation-work myself. Stefanomione (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A first step might be ones with the word "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books, etc.) in the name. That's all a huge mess. And more than a few violate MoS guidelines for naming. British word usage on television season vs series vs. show for example has a longtime consensus. I look at just how much there is and just haven't dealt with it yet just due to the tagging alone. - jc37 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • What Jc37 said. My name appears more than 100 times on your talk page due to automatic notifications of discussions, almost all of which have resulted in changes. I'm trying to get you to change your behavior before it appears 100 more times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (ec) As Mike knows, we've already spent quite a bit of time at CfD delineating the media/creative works confusion, generally with unanimous support. I thought we had the 'use of the "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books"' problem cleared up. It sounds to me like Jc37 is also criticizing what the categories have become, post-Stefanomione, rather than what he created? Jc, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • What Mike S. said, exactly. It's not about what they've become after. See what we have in the category system is (as noted on my talk page) a "commonality of consistency based upon prior consensus". And a category's name, even more than how it is subcatted into an existing tree of cats, is of profound importance when trying to figure out what we're looking at. Categories are all about navigation. and the names should be clear so that any editor (tm) should feel confident placing the category on a specific page. And to further that navigation, we have multifaceted sets of category trees, of varying kinds. Limited only by the software itself, and previous consensus on style and choice. So what I'm getting at is at the start, these cats are named badly, and trees designed into a mess. And at CfD the sections of these huge trees are having separate discussions, so we have ended up with varying results. It is art? visual art? fine art? Should we use media? media by type? medium? works? Should we have X based on Y categories? T (sorted) by Z? And how specific should they be? An author and his works? or just the author or just his works? how vague or specific? Which terminology should we use? How should we disambiguate the names? Are they too broad or too narrow in inclusion criteria (the name itself being the criteria)? Is any of this described in an article somewhere explaining and sourcing this? And finally, how much of this is flatly WP:OR, and has nothing to do with scholarly interest? And I've only barely scratched the surface of this mess. This isn't the only mess in categories, but it's becoming more and more a big one. And Stefanomione's lack of discussion beforehand tied with automated tool usage, makes this very quickly into a king sized mess that continues to grow very fast daily. As I said above, I think that if this was a bot, the bot would have been blocked by now, and the bot owner asked to explain the edits, and to proactively seek community consensus before such future edits. Else their bot privileges may be indefinitely suspended and the bot indefinitely blocked. And yes, there are many examples in this page's archives supporting this assertion. - jc37 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Per Jc37, this is a big mess and getting bigger. Before Stefanomione gets to create any more categories, even by prior discussion, zie should first work with other editors to review the huge number of categories created so far. That will be a big task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been wondering what to do about this user's category creations for a long time now. A very high percentage of them have to be renamed or deleted, and this has consistently been the case for a long time now. I essentially agree with what other users have written above. Good Ol’factory 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone who puts that big a strain on CFD resources probably should be on an editing restriction. Agree with the community sanction mentioned above. --Kbdank71 05:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the above discussion, I think we have clear consensus for this community sanction. Do any administrators/bureaucrats here know how to disable HotCat for a particular user? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• As we discuss this, he's resumed category creation. I don't have a particular problem with his latest created category, but he's clearly not interested in waiting for the results of this discussion before resuming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  So it would seem. - jc37 06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to ban from automatically modifying categories

From what I have been given to understand, while proposed, the community in the past decided that blocking an editor was better than adding a functionality to the software to block an editor from using a gadget. Basically, if they've been asked to stop, and they don't, it warrants a block.

With that in mind, I am proposing, based upon the discussion above, and other such discussions, that:

a.) User:Stefanomione be banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories in any way. This includes, but is not limited only to, creating a category page, adding pages to a category, changing a page from one category to another, etc.

This restriction may be lifted in the future IF Stefanomione has shown to be consistently following the second restriction (b, below) over a decent period of time, absolutely no less than 3 months (with at least 6 months being preferrable).

b.) Also that if any (presumably manually done, per the restriction above) category creation or modification done by Stefanomione is contested, he must stop and discuss, gaining a consensus before continuing, per WP:BRD.

Violation of these restrictions may result in being blocked. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption has gone on too long, and this is a good solution which falls short of an outright ban. It gives Stefanomione a chance to learn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with these restrictions and with the principle that after a reasonable period of time he be eligible to have it considered whether they should be lifted. Good Ol’factory 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the value is of a:) The single biggest issue with Stefanomione has been poorly conceptualizing or structuring categories. Taking away Hotcat (if such a thing is possible) won't affect that in the slightest, and will only slow him down a tiny bit, if at all. b.) seems to me to be the meat of the thing. Does "contested" mean it has to come to another CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Contested simply means another editor opposes. Similar to how the word is used when saying: a contested PROD. - jc37 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? I can guarantee that an 85% retention rate is better than the content of the edits of just about anyone on this page - myself included. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. It will constantly need revising and revisiting. I'm not seeing very much discussion with this user about concerns; I can't even tell from the discussion above what issue people are having with his categories other than "we don't like them". It should be no surprise that if the overwhelming majority of an editor's contributions is to a small area of the project, then the overwhelming revision rate will also be in that small area of the project. I do note, however, that most of the categories for February 26, which are linked at his page, aren't actually listed on the February 26 CFD log. This is a serious error, and needs to be rectified if there is a plan to CFD the category (i.e., starting over for the full discussion period). Perhaps someone had problems with automated tools? Risker (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  No I'm not kidding. And if you did look in even the editor's talk page history you might have seen more problems. And this doesn't include other discussions elsewhere. And 85% retention rate? What? The issue here is that there is just so much, and he doesn't stop (even now) that it's a lot of work for others to deal with it. As I am looking over the editor's contributions, there is a lot which should be reverted/deleted, if only based upon prior consensus. That said, I won't debate it with you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. - jc37 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing. I can personally think of at least four administrators who have made much, much more significant errors in categorization who got a pleasant query on their user talk, worked it out with the person who raised the issue, and together they came up with a solution that was better for the project. If I can think of that many people, and I hardly pay attention to categorization, then I think I have grounds to say that it's not numbers, it's that the user isn't being communicated with. Risker (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Risker, you say you "hardly pay attention to categorization," and that much is obvious. If you went to CfD and typed "Stefanomione" in the search field, you would see many dozens of attempts to discuss this with Stefanomione. In addition, all the February 26 are listed on that CfD page; they're all just grouped into one discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not very much discussion? The vast majority of this user's talk page are notices about categories created by them up for discussion at cfd. It's clear they don't get it. --Kbdank71 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? Those are templated notices that indicate someone's made a decision without even bothering to talk to the user beforehand. I'm not seeing "Stefaniome, please stop for a few minutes and explain to me why you're creating these categories." In fact, I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years. The time for that conversation is before tagging something for deletion. It would be a different story if someone could show repeated evidence of trying to discuss without receiving any response, but that does not appear to be the case here. Risker (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussions are at Categories for discussion. I don't see anything wrong or irregular about that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With regards to "I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years.", there is this discussion from August: last post. Not terribly recent, granted, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that the discussions subsequent to that have been held at CFD - I certainly don't think Stefanomie would have been unaware of other editors' sentiments regarding this. Begoon  03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You suggest that the only suitable place to discuss a concern with a created category is at CfD. I very much disagree. If you have a problem with a category that a user has created, our dispute resolution process dictates that your first stop is to discuss it with the editor. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be that Risker is unaware that CfD hasn't stood for "categories for Deletion" for quite some time (years, actually). Categories at CfD are posted for just that. discussion. (Category talk pages are rather typically under-watched) Results at CfD are varied, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm quite aware of that. What I'm saying is that there is no valid reason to fail to discuss this directly with the editor before taking a category to that page. The first stop in any disagreement is discussion with the user, not a noticeboard of any kind. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now that it's been shown that many users have tried to discuss this problem directly with the editor, on his talk page no less, do you have any valid objections to this? --Kbdank71 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jc37's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of unnecessary work being created for others is unacceptable. I do see attempts to discuss this with Stefaniome in the past, on his talk page and history, and at the CFD discussions. It can be hard to navigate the talk page and history because of the number of notices. @Risker: the 26th Feb nominations seem to be combined somewhat, at this discussion - that fooled me when I initially followed the talk page links, too. Begoon  00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As I mentioned before, I think WP:CATP is a nice place to have centralized discussions of this nature before category creation happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think a ban on his editing privileges will help him understand what is right and what is wrong. Abhijay 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not block editors as a teaching mechanism, particularly when the vast majority of their work is useful. We teach them, and talk to them. We don't do that at CfD, we do that one-to-one; only if that has been unsuccessful should this issue ever come up. Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. We are clearly beyond merely suggesting to Stefanomione that he change his behavior. This seems a regrettable but necessary solution.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing your original statement here, Mike Selinker. You have consistently said that the only place you've discussed this is at CfD; I note no other edits by you to this editor's page other than to place CfD notices. Can you explain why you have failed to have a discussion directly with the editor? Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved my statement to further up the page. It is baffling to me that you are suggesting that I have not had a discussion with this editor when I have had dozens of discussions with him, just not on his page. Especially when CGingold, Good Ol'Factory, Elen of the Roads, and Shawn in Montreal have had those discussions with him on his page. And of course, I didn't propose this notice, so I'm not sure why you think my actions invalidate this proposal. You seem well intentioned, but you also seem to have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Please feel free to prove me wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spoken to Risker about his objection. I think he's wrong that we haven't tried to engage Stefanomione, but I understand his position. Accordingly, I call upon Risker to provide an alternative to the proposal, and we can support or object to it. In the absence of another proposal, my position is to solidly support this approach.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral/Weak Oppose I've watched Stef for a few years and admit he can be fairly uncommunicative, but well intentioned. I like the idea of restrictions, but I would prefer it incorporate some aspect of mentorship/education. Also, I disagree with the idea that hotcat is an automated tool. It's a semi-automated tool that requires review of every edit with it. I would be fine with just the second condition applying to all of his actions (semi-automated or otherwise) and requiring him to "fix" any contested actions that result in an opposite finding in the resulting discussion. MBisanz 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, in light of User talk:Giano II/archive 3#Category:Architects of the Sicilian Baroque, I'll oppose. Could we find a bilingual editor to engage him in his native tongue? I believe User:Snowolf is fluent in Italian. MBisanz 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the mentorship/education part of your suggestion (before you opposed it, anyway).--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mentorship would be fine with me, but the restrictions should still be placed regardless. And the mentor(s) could help determine how soon after the minimum 3 month time period the (semi-)automated tools restriction may be lifted. - jc37 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

I, and several others, have been arguing that the citing the latest scientific, peer reviewed, publication on the subject is a significant and helpful inclusion to the text on the subject.

Apart from gossip, what exactly is there to back the slur that a) Bentham is guilt of acting as "vanity press" ever, b) that the authors of the ebook paid to get it published? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

This is just another slur. I know for a fact that it was reviewed by at least one relevant authority. What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

How can citing the latest scientific literature about the subject be deemed "against the consensus"? I guess, only in the sense that the "consensus" wants the idea ignored without any critical thinking or proper refutation in the scientific literature.

Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

"Quacking"? I note the ad hominem. You guys clearly do not even know what these ideas are and then you censor a simple ref to update the public with latest. The only quackery here is from people so ignorant that they cannot discriminate between the idea that a slight adaptive shift in moving through water might have, for example by wading through shallow water, led to in increase in hominin bipedalism and the idea that some all powerful "God" created the entire universe in six days, just for us. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please can we have a little impartiality here. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.

Thanks for being so reasonable there! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:

• Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
• March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH )
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 )
• Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
• Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH)
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit appears unrelated to the AAH.

I admit to being very interested in this idea. Sorry. I have a master's degree on the wading hypothesis, started a PhD, had two papers published on the idea and now had a book published. I apologise for imagining that this might have made my input as significant as self-styled, anonymous, Wikipedian lay "experts" on human evolution. Clearly, as long as you support the mainstream view, you must always be right. Algis Kuliukas (talk)

Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited , , , , . A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.

In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book , , . Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page , , , , , . In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical , , though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation which might help: If anyone supports the damned so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" - ban them immediately. That will solve your problem. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The SPI came back as no accounts related to each other . The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, you guys must be geniuses! Incredible censorship of a mild, plausible and evidence-based idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the SPAs, User:Mvaneech, has just identified himself as a co-editor of the book (see article talk page). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a topic ban of Algis Kuliukas would resolve the issue of the disruption on this article because of the amount of SPAs/meatpuppets that are showing up to defend the eBook. The problem here is that we have several editors new to Misplaced Pages who don't understand WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Algis, if you want your book to be included at all in the article (which doesn't seem very likely considering the publisher), you need to demonstrate that your work has been peer-reviewed or that it has generated any responses from mainstream scientific sources. You can't simply claim that it was peer-reviewed and then not provide any evidence. Listing your CV on your userpage does not lend any additional weight to your book. Additionally, cries of censorship are probably hurting your aim here; there is not right to edit Misplaced Pages. Imagine, for a moment, that I wrote a book saying that the lights that we see at night are actually not other suns but simply holes in the sky that let in the light of the cosmos. For much of human history, that was a "mild, plausible and evidence-based idea." I can't include my book on the holes in the sky in the article on "star" because it has not been peer-reviewed and it is contradicted by mainstream science. I know that you would probably think that my analogy does not fit your situation at all but realize that this is the way that some Misplaced Pages editors perceive your claims. You have to provide more than a little-known eBook to change the article. Chillllls (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

<irony>Thanks for voting for not banning me.</irony> "Considering the publisher" is just another groundless slur. Why is it up to me to demonstrate that the book was peer reviewed and not the people set against this idea to show there is something amiss with the publisher? This seems a little unfair to me. Most of the contributors to the book are professional scientists, including Philip Tobias, and almost all the others are PhD students at reputable universities studying reputable subjects. I know one eminent scientist who reviewed the book but I am not at liberty to make this public. We are planning to contact the publishers to let them know about these slurs. Your analogy is patronising and offensive. If you (and your lay cohort of Misplaced Pages editors) cannot discriminate between the idea that some (rather slight) selection from wading, swimming and diving might have affected the human phenotype, as compared to other great apes - and such twaddle, I have to wonder how it is you/they that are a position of authority admonishing/judging/advising me, and not the other way around. The article (remember) is about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" and we have just published a book - the latest book - on that subject. If even this simple, relevant, timely fact is censored out of this page I have to question the agenda of you and your fellow editors. It would seem that informing the public about what the idea is - is not on that agenda. Outrageous! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"If I were them, I'd be thinking about taking legal action" comes very close to a legal threat. I'd strongly advise you to strike this if you genuinely want to gather support for your position here and bring fellow editors round to your way of thinking. And you absolutely must not repeat or strengthen this threat if you want to remain an editor here. Either take this problem to the courts or solve it here. You can't do both. Further repetition will lead to a block. Kim Dent-Brown 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Algis Kuliukas has promptly complied, many thanks for the co-operation. Kim Dent-Brown 14:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone tell me why the page has a ref to Jim Moore's (a lay person who was a partner to Nancy Tanner, not the anthropologist) masquerading web site and bloggs that are not peer reviewed, but our attempt to include a reference to the latest, scholarly, peer reviewed, textbook is blocked and results in the page being locked? I think it is called bias. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Algis: The point that you just made is a variation of something called a Other Stuff Exists argument on Misplaced Pages. If you have a problem with the Jim Moore ref and the material that it supports, remove the material from the article and, if the material is challenged by someone else, discuss it on the talk page (WP:BRD). If you actually cared about the quality of the article, you would do that instead of trying to repeatedly force the inclusion of your own book against talk page and RS/N consensus. Your sarcasm and accusations of bias/censorship will not help you accomplish your goal. Chillllls (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page to ban the ebook reference? I never saw any.Yloopx (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the accounts arguing for inclusion of the book either were the book's editors, or new accounts such as yourself with little apparent appreciation for policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible topic ban violation

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

It was pointed out to me on my talkpage that Cybermud (talk · contribs) may have violated the men's rights topic ban I placed on him here, which was confirmed in this AN/I discussion, by participating in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination). I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could review this and see if action needs to be taken. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the edits you mention border on violating Cybermud's topic ban but do not cross the line. He was banned from making edits related to the topic of men's rights not feminism. I believe, however, it might be wise for Cybermud to avoid that general topic area and concentrate on something completely different for a time... Salvio 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copying my commentary on this over from Sarek's talk page. I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked (or rather, to be diametrically opposed to one another, and in constant struggle), and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to wikilawyer, considering that even I am suggesting Cybermud to concentrate on different topics; however, you should link to his restriction, not to the terms of the article probation. Cybermud was a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. I consider it a stretch to argue those words also include an article about men and feminism, no matter what men's rights advocates may think.

    Considering that you yourself think that his input to the discussion was rather reasonable and that it is, at least, disputed that his restriction prevented Cybermud from participating in that AfD, I believe Cybermud should not be sanctioned. Salvio 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and feminism is directly related to Men's rights because the article discusses Men's rights, see the entire section Men and feminism#Antifeminist response. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Cybermud has violated his topic ban, see this warning. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree it's related to men's rights. I also agree with Salvio that the topic ban was unfortunately poorly worded. I believe the normal wording is something like from "topic banned from articles related to TB" which makes it clear it's from all articles related to the topic TB. (Sometimes broadly construed may be added.) In this case, the topic ban could easily be read to suggest the ban is from the article (rather then the topic) Men's rights including talk pages and related pages. What's a related page isn't specified, so it could be intepreted to mean xFDs and AN(I) discussions of the article. Or perhaps sub articles of men's rights (of which there are none), but not, related but non subarticles. (Men and feminism can't really be said to be a subarticle of men's rights, of feminism sure. It mentions men's rights, but also other things.) It's suggested multiple places in this thread this isn't the first time, if so, has the topic ban been clarified to Cybermud before? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page section deals with his previous violation. Kim Dent-Brown also clarified his topic ban on the original section somewhat, saying "You are banned from the Men's rights article and other articles in the same topic area." I think Cybermud realized, or should have reasonably realized, that this article was included in his ban. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In that case I agree that whatever the original wording, it should have been clear that the topic ban was in the wider topic area and covered men and feminism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (recused sysop comment) This is just one further instance of Cybermud flaunting site policy in a long history of it. Salvio Men and feminism has a section on Men's rights - its about men's rights as well as profeminism and other related topics, it falls smack bang in the middle of the topic ban & bans apply to all edits good or bad--Cailil 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. With most other editors, I would be inclined to say we should let it slide, but this is cybermud's second violation of his topic ban, and shows his continued flagrant disregard for... well... pretty much everything about Misplaced Pages. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How the heck can Men and feminism not be related to "Men's rights"? Men and feminism has a 5 paragraph section titled "Men's rights", and the entire "men's rights movement" arose as a response against feminism. The two topics are directly and closely related. This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, IMO. Whether or not his edit was helpful or disruptive is immaterial. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a fairly clear (if not particularly large) consensus that Cybermud has breached his topic ban; looking at the article in question I also agree that the article clearly falls within the scope of the ban. I am going to block Cybermud for for the duration of the ban (until 10 March), which is a bit under 2 weeks. I've never blocked an editor for breaching a ban before, so I invite the review of others if they feel the amount of time is too long or two short; we may also want to consider whether there should be an extension of the topic ban, per Kim Dent-Brown's closing comment for the ANI discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with me, and I only noticed this from the watchlist, as I seen the word 'block' and was having a nosey. But I would say a reasonable punishment for anyone who breaches a ban, would be to start the length of the original ban again, and add an additional 50% of the original sentence to the banning order - that way the offender is being punished not only for committing the original offence, but also for breaching it too. Just making an observer suggestion that all. Wesley☀Mouse 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My original closing notice imposing the topic ban included the words: "One month topic ban for Cybermud from Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic.". I didn't explicitly link to WP:TBAN but this includes the words: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Between the two it's pretty clear to me that a violation has taken place, albeit a minor one and I accept Cybermud's assurances of good faith. I support the block which was instated to run alongside the ban, and propose that the clock for the ban (but not the block) should be 'reset' to one month following the last edit in violation of the topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ban being reset - this was standard operating procedure anyway until fairly recently--Cailil 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Clear violation of topic ban. POV warriors will continue to fight until stopped. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Armbrust, I've commented out your archiving, because we need to determine if the topic ban should be extended. I see three people supporting that; I feel like that's not a huge number of people and would prefer to see if anyone else wants to chime in before finalizing an extension (probably 1 additional month). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The ban should be reset --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the ban should be reset. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests

I have continously warned and discussed edits at the above page by the user User talk:TAzimi. In return he responds to warnings with attacks of ownerships even though the vast majority of his edits to the page are unsourced OR. He then explains through further OR that one edit is wrong in his opinion and "commen sense" when discredited by WP's own page at Bagram airfield ought to imply. THen he reverts everything AGAIN despite calls and discussion not to do so (where i explained EACH of the reverts of his that are OR or against MOS.) As a new editor i told him to read MOS, but he acusses me of cowing him as a new editor (see the aticle talk page). I am now not reverting but just tagged the page to try and generate a discussion. (the page is also on ITN)

At the moment only seeking a warning intervention..however seeing his contribs there maybe further reason if thats how he edits across WP. in future a block but for now an admin warning should suffice.

On the talk page of teh artilce in question, he must eb told not to resort to NPA off the bat and to discuss content. THX.Lihaas talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" here. (See header). Haploidavey (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Haploidavey (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FoR THE record, and though needless that the comment is corrected, teh warning is removed Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First, Lihaas should not have come here when I'm engaged in article talk. I'm not sure what OR is this person talking about? He or she should've warned self because he/she's distorting info and trying to blame others. For example, he/she wants the article to read that ISAF were involved in the Koran burning when all sources say it was the Americans. ISAF is a multi-national force and none of the source blamed ISAF. Lihaas is disruptive and a POV-pusher. My edits are fine because they are all properly sourced using RSs, all I did was correct the info. Lihaas is trying to get blocked everyone that opposes his or her's vision (example, he/she keeps asserting that Bagram Airfield is ISAF-run base) but that is absolutely false because there is no source that backs this ridiculous claim. In fact, I provided the official website of Bagram Airfield and there is not even a mention of ISAF there. Many of his or her's other edits to 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests are the same and when someone comes to correct it he starts putting warning messages in their talk as he did in my. When I'm actively engaged in the Talk:2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests he/she shouldn't be writing nonsense in my talk because that makes me confused and frustrated. I think he or she out to be blocked for disruption.--TAzimi (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) persistently fails to cite sources at articles Unitary National Liberation Front and Yugoslav Partisans. BoDu (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? GiantSnowman 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...and this requires immediate blocking? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: , , , , ... BoDu (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like attempted retaliation by BoDu due to his recent blocking for repeated unsourced edits on the Draza Mihailovic and Chetniks articles. Thought it was worth mentioning. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but note that User:FkpCascais, who has been previously contacted by BoDu regarding this, and has a history on the articles BoDu was edit-warring on, is simultaneously lobbying to have his topic ban removed on grounds of "admin abuse" (see above). I speculate they've concluded that had they acted together, they could have gotten away with enforcing their changes by edit-warring.

I want to state for the record I'm fairly certain User:FkpCascais will resume his edit-warring very quickly upon the expiration of his topic ban. -- Director (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Both BoDu and DIREKTOR have been edit warring at the Unitary National Liberation Front article, but it has died down now. I'd advise both editors to go & edit other articles for a while. GiantSnowman 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I've noticed you're being constantly contacted by FkpCascais and BoDu. I'm not implying they've impeded your objectivity in this matter, but I feel its kind of irregular - we're not talking to anyone. I'm sure you realize there's a bit more to this?

BoDu decided to start about a half-dozen intensive edit wars simultaneously, against three other editors. The edits were simply outrageous in that they deleted well referenced info (and succeed in keeping it deleted through incessant reverting). BoDu had the gall to actually cite WP:BRD in support of his edit-warring, in the sense that when this sourced info was added at some point (years ago when the template was created), it was done without a talkpage consensus and therefore he has the "right" to revert it indefinitely unless there is a consensus on the talkpage ("WP:BRD has no time limit"). Great stuff, right? With that "logic" one could justify reverting every single piece of information on Misplaced Pages. Of course, he did not consider three other opposing users sufficient to satisfy his perceptions of a "consensus". When asked to provide a source for his changes he actually falsified references, listing random page numbers and apparently hoping noone would check .

He finally got blocked for this, and now that he was unblocked "on parole" (a grave error imo), his first order of business is to harass me and others by posting these sort of reports. He probably thinks "I got him blocked", just like User:FkpCascais holds others responsible for his topic ban ("they got me topic-banned"). -- Director (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Pardon my outburst above, its my last post on this thread. I certainly agree to move away from the article in question. In fact I edit it very rarely anyway. -- Director (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, this is about WP:OR:"Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research.". In my opinion, administrators should remove the original research by User:DIREKTOR, and then warn him that a block will be applied, if he again returns the unsourced material. BoDu (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't make content decisions in articles. If you have a content disagreement with another editor you should discuss it with them, and if necessary follow the steps outlined at WP:DR. I see nothing requiring admin attention here. EyeSerene 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Direktor - no, you HAVE implied that my objectivity has been influenced and I'd like an apology please. I've advised you BOTH to edit elsewhere, and I reiterate that.

BoDu - don't like what's on the article? Take it to the talk page or WP:DR should you need to. GiantSnowman 11:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've Afd'd Unitary National Liberation Front as it lacks any references. Nobody Ent 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman. That was certainly not my intention, and if it was perceived as such I do sincerely apologize. As you've pointed out very accurately, you've in no way displayed any sort of bias, and I am (and was) aware of that. Why would I make such an implication? -- Director (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Through some discussions on my talk page about FkpCascais's topic ban I became aware of this case here. BoDu (talk · contribs) was recently blocked per ARBMAC for a dispute on other articles and as a condition of his unblocking he agreed to follow the DR process. Diving right back into an edit war may have violated that so I have notified the blocking admin to chime in. My take on the case it it seems both parties are at fault here: the article has no references but changing unreferenced material with further unreferenced material is de facto battlegrounding and subject to ARBMAC sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the link here, Wgfinley! Personally, I do think BoDu has violated his unblocking agreement – he was unblocked on the 28.02 and agreed to follow WP:DR; instead, he escalated one of the content disputes he was involved here, by starting a thread here.

That said, I agree with Wgfinley that both parties are at fault here, however. I don't know what the best approach to this issue would be, frankly. In my opinion, a topic ban on both BoDu and Direktor does not appear unwarranted... Salvio 17:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano, I did not violate the unblocking agreement because:

1. I did not revert any edits at all

2. there is no time limit when should I open discussion on WP:DR

3. According to WP:DE persistent fails to cite sources can be reported on this noticeboard BoDu (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I don't want to seem like I am persistently supporting Direktor, I barely know the guy and I forget which dispute I started getting involved with him another another editor I won't name. However, this seems to me a case of someone drowning and pulling whomever they can down with them.--v/r - TP 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Direktor is a good user and he's often right policywise, but sometimes he shows a problematic battleground mentality. When I blocked BoDu, I was about to also impose a revert restriction on Direktor, because he had been edit warring just as much as BoDu, but, in the end, I opted not to... Direktor and BoDu edit in a very difficult area; I believe they'd both profit from a short break... Salvio 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Um.. the edit war is long over and done with, at least for my part. I withdrew about a week ago (well before you blocked BoDu) , and I certainly have no intention of playing BoDu's game again. Punitive sanctions? And no I don't think I would particularly benefit from being effectively blocked. Interestingly, though, as I stated on my talkpage two days ago , I'm going on Wikibreak anyway (I've only postponed it because one of the smaller articles I mostly wrote has an afd, and because of this thread). -- Director (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrea James

The subject of this article is an editor here, User:Jokestress. Ms. James is a transgender activist who edits heavily in the subject here. She objects to the inclusion of claims that she was involved with the online harassment of a prominent academic whose theories she disagrees with has a reputation for rather harsh tactics for silencing dissent. The claims are made in an academic paper published in a peer-reviewed journal by a historian and bioethecist and in a New York Times article (by one of its science/medical writers). The NYT reports that "Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children.. and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided" and the peer-reviewed paper says she wrote "that 'there are two types of children in the Bailey household,' namely those 'who have been sodomized by their father who have not'".. The NYT article includes her response to a question about why she attacked the guy's children (it appears she thinks this was a reasonable response, according to the Times article). She insists that the academic who wrote the paper and the New York Times reporter are out to get her and therefore their comments should not be included. She's recruited a new user, User:Luwat to edit in her favor (who now accuses me of "hate"). The relevant diff is here . Most of the sources at present are to her own website, fellow activist websites, and a few mainstream press items that mention her en passant (i.e. "James was a consultant advising the actress who played the transgendered character in the movie.") I won't be bothering about it anymore, but it's a classic wikipedia rules "are for thee but not for me" kind of situation. Good luck! Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is engaging in canvassing, and the summary above is not accurate. There's already a discussion of this complex issue at NPOVN. I have removed an inaccurate BLP violation in the comment above. The issue is not the inclusion of critical comments and sources. I proposed adding them and expanding on them in a version of my bio I prepared after Bali ultimate added numerous dead link tags. You can review the proposed content here: User:Jokestress/Biography My concern is that Bali ultimate's major expansion of one side of the disagreement and breaking it out into its own large section have reached the the point of undue weight and POV issues. We are making some progress at NPOVN despite this sort of disruption by Bali ultimate. I see another editor immediately reverted to Bali ultimate's version, presumably based on the inaccurate summary above. This concern is mentioned at NPOVN and is part of a larger conduct issue I'd like to review elsewhere once this content issue is addressed. Jokestress (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate's claim that Andrea recruited me to edit her biography is an outright lie. I do not know her personally, and she has already clarified, at user talk:Maunus, that she does not know me. Bali ultimate's making of untruthful accusations of this kind is further evidence that he is too emotionally agitated to be editing a sensitive biography. Luwat (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on Bali's emotional state, I will say that most people are likely not dispassionate enough to edit their own biographies and should probably tread lightly. Nformation 01:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not edited my own biography and do not intend to. I have proposed text which I believe is objective and proportional, but that is for others to decide. With controversies, we often see editors like Bali ultimate who get all outraged and expand a minor issue into an over-detailed expression of their POV. That's what has happened to my bio, and it happens to Wikipedians with bios from Jimmy Wales on down. Example: the outrage du jour is Richard F. Cebull, whose biography at one point today was half about an email he forwarded yesterday and half about his 40 years of legal work and service. This kind of COATRACK and UNDUE is my concern, especially since Bali ultimate's additions appear to be in response to my NPOV concern raised on that noticeboard. This kind of "I'll how you who's boss" attitude is always unfortunate, but it's especially problematic on BLPs. I have let a lot of crap slide on the biography about me over the years, but the recent edits made by Bali ultimate do not present the full scope of the controversy and blow it way out of proportion in terms of its significance within my work. I seek to bring it into NPOV, and when Bali ultimate started losing that discussion, he started forum shopping in hopes of getting his way. Jokestress (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what kind of action Bali wants here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he wants his expanded coatrack to stand as is and is forum shopping to achieve that end, where I would like uninvolved editors with whom I've not had negative on-wiki interaction previously to review his version for NPOV. I asked him not to edit it at all since we have had prior interactions and there is a discussion at NPOVN, but that request made him edit it even more disproportionately. Based on his talk page, he has a history of this sort of interpersonal conduct. If we are going to have that much detail, I would hope the other published viewpoints in this discussion are expanded proportionally. However, I think that much detail is out of proportion within a bio this brief. Jokestress (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looked to me like Bali was edit warring, so I'm glad s/he's apparently stepped away from the article for a while (Luwat too). The underlying is complicated and IMHO, Maunus is doing a good job at NPOVN trying to sort it out. I don't think there's anything for ANI at the moment, if the back-and-forth reverts have stopped. Better to not have too many parallel discussions on the same topic. I suggest closing this thread and referring to NPOVN unless new conflict arises. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict^3, fork, etc. Bali ultimate, exactly how many editors are you going to fight with? ) Bali ultimate's accusation of meatpuppetry above doesn't seem to include any evidence that wouldn't equally apply to Bali ultimate himself. It seems mainly an attempt to undermine one editor on-wiki by reciting what another editor did off-wiki in a previous decade. (Actions that were, of course, discussed at length on-wiki back when they were recent.) It is analogous to arguing that we should punish Bali ultimate because the last person pushing the POV he's fighting for was shown to have an undisclosed conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BB the action i'm seeking is additional eyes on a dispute involving an editor with a conflict of interest. Ms. James: If you have additional sources, or "viewpoints" as you say, that address what the NYT and an academic journal have to say about your conduct, you have yet to point them out at the article's talk page. You should, if you want the "other published viewpoints in this discussion (to be) expanded proportionally" please do so. I'm not aware of any other sources that adress this issue yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping by bali ultimate -- there are no issue here requiring admin intervention. Nobody Ent 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion should remain here: Misplaced Pages:NPOV/N#Users_editing_my_biography_during_disputes Nobody Ent 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If discussion is being centralized there, that's great. But this is the second time that an effort has been made to attract more attention to the discussion ( here is the first, by me). The issues are complicated and independent editors really, really should examine the details involved. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your previous thread attracted one comment, and not from an admin. This thread has attracted more comments, but still not from admins. To the extent, you and Bali want "additional eyes", I've no doubt admins have eyed both topics, so we're done and can close (the ayes have it).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rejedef and European geography

Rejedef (talk · contribs) apparently objects to the use of the terms "Western Europe", "Central Europe", and "Eastern Europe", and attempts to remove them from articles wherever possible. Failing that, he re-assigns their geography, so that places typically assigned to Western and Eastern Europe by, for example, the United Nations geoscheme for Europe, are re-assigned by him to Central Europe. He particularly objects to the term "Eastern Europe", which I think he has described as a "racist slur", and to assigning Poland and Lithuania to Eastern Europe. This appears to have been going on for over a year; I haven't added more diffs, because the vast majority of the edits he has made in the past year has been related to this, as is easily seen from his edit history. I also haven't engaged him on directly this issue, because of a number of combative issues I've seen on his talk page, particularly posts like this after he was blocked a couple of times for edit-warring over this. I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I think it may have reached the level of administrative intervention. Jayjg 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone thru and reverted a few more questionable changes. Also, see this old version of his talk page, especially the thread "Vanished"? User:Qwyrxian may have some more info here, so I'm going to ask for their input. --Jayron32 04:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, someone should check if there's any connection to User:Silar and his IP sockpuppets. I glanced at Rejedef's contributions just out of interest here, for completely unrelated reasons and was immediately struck by the similarity of interests - "Eastern European" (or whatever) cuisine, the naming of German concentration camps in Poland, the history of Germans in Poland. There was also a strange IP/user a while back which kept inserting weird text into Mazovia related articles, whose tone was very reminiscent of Silar - Rejedef seems to share that interest as well. I might be reading too much into it - maybe it's just Rejedef following another user's edits but it definitely raised alarm flags.VolunteerMarek 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• This has been an ongoing problem on Europe and elsewhere (he objects to the term "Eastern Europe"). Since he has caused disruption repeatedly now, I would suggest reporting him at WP:AE under WP:DIGWUREN, so that he can be given a logged notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also the guy who created the hoax-y Zapihanha article about a traditional Mazovian dish made out of avocados and bananas. There's some weirdness going on here.VolunteerMarek 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling with how much to say, because unfortunately a lot of my interaction with Rejedef came via email. You can see from his log and the talk page history that I blocked him for 24 on 30 December 2011 for edit warring (block notification diff) on Eastern Europe and Western Europe. As I say there, there was no 3RR breach, but there was consistent edit warring while a talk page discussion was ongoing, especially problematic in that there was at least a clear temporary consensus against Rejedef's additions. The edit warring resumed after the block, so I blocked again on 4 January 2012 (block notifaction diff), this time for 1 week. After that there substantial conversations by email, that I would like to reveal the broad topics of, but probably shouldn't without Rejedef's permission. You can get an idea of the types of issues being raised by the comment in the diff above about how xe asserted an absolute right to blank xyr page per EU law. Those conversations also made it clear to me that I could not help Rejedef, so I've tried to remain hands off since. I do find the recent changes to be a problem, because there appears to be pretty aggressive POV pushing across a wide variety of articles. I simply don't understand this idea that calling a food, a country, an event, etc. "Eastern European" is an insult...but my feeling is that no matter what, we need to use what reliable sources say. I don't know enough about the literature on Europe overall to know what the proper name is for any given instance, but my general impression (just from reading newspapers and general books on history) is that it is not the case that Eastern Europe is somehow a deprecated term, or that there is some well-defined and regularly used term "Central Europe". It never occurred to me that this is a DIGWUREN issue, and if others agree that it is, I strongly encourage the issue be brought up. If someone needs the information, I am willing to send copies of the emails (w/o any private details) privately to a highly trusted admin or Arbcom member. A small note though--there's a good chance I will have only minimal access to Misplaced Pages for the next 36 hours or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know much about WP:DIGWUREN, so I'd feel more comfortable is someone else followed up on this. Can anyone here do so? Jayjg 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Samanta Institute of Science and Technology

Okay, I have no idea if this is the right place to post this, or if there's even anything worth posting about. But I'm not a happy camper, and I thought I'd spread some of that joy around.

Article and editors referenced herein:

• Hidden World News (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ayishkaneen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Samanta Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Background:

• A couple of days ago, User:Hidden World News showed up and re-wrote Samanta Institute of Science and Technology, from scratch, in a highly biased fashion. Shortly after that, the editor was blocked for breaking the guidelines on usernames.

• I came across the article when looking at edits tagged as coi-spam. I figured I'd roll it back to the last sourced NPOV version… but I couldn't find one. I looked around a bit for sources, but I had trouble finding any that gave me sufficient background. Okay, I think; I'll take it over to Articles for deletion/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology.

• Today, User:Ayishkaneen, as his first and only edit, added this to the top of the article:

Here is a link to an article about this page.

If you follow that link, you end up at a page with the headline, "WIKIPEDIA DENIES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE VICTIMS A PLATFORM TO TELL THEIR STORY." Here's what it says:

(this has been sent to many members of Indian Parliament so they are aware of what is happening in the United States and how it is affecting one of their schools. They need to be aware that they should not follow the American sense of justice, nor should they bow to any demands of the American government. This is American judiciary at its finest)

Since June, 2010, there has been a Misplaced Pages article slandering SIST. The article has been citing WSAW, WCCO, Baltimore Sun, and a source whose name speaks for itself, Jewbytes. None of the named sources have interviewed any members of the board of directors for SIST, and have completely based their articles off innuendos, speculations, and blatant lies from sources completely unrelated to SIST in any way. Following is their laughable “encyclopedic knowledge” as it appeared on February 27, 2012. Please bear in mind while reading this article that SIST is an educational organization that owns and operates a school for under-privelaged students in Orissa, India, and operates a few businesses in Wisconsin and Minnesota, USA, to fund the school. ...... click here for full article

It is a sad and heart-breaking day for humanity and SIST. Even Misplaced Pages will not give them a platform to speak their side of the story. Misplaced Pages allowed this article to be on their site since June, 2010, referencing slandered news stories. But within three hours of edits and statements backed up with court documents as solid proof of the human and civil rights violations being perpetrated by the courts and other government officials in the United States of America, they decided it was an attack page and marked it for deletion. How come they didn’t mark it for deletion before? Why did Misplaced Pages give a platform to a farce for so long that was obviously based completely off innuendos and accusations? Why, after someone posted real factual evidence, did they suddenly get uncomfortable and mark it for deletion? Somebody in their network, currently working under the name DoriSmith, has some type of prejudice against the minority in America. Could it be that she is another white supremist operating under the color of “Misplaced Pages editor” to re-write facts and history for the murderous Catholic Church? Misplaced Pages owes SIST an apology. They also owe an apology to the under-privileged students and staff of SIST in India who benefit from the hard work and dedication of those in the United States of America. Many people who, in the face of severe discrimination and persecution, have faithfully dedicated their time, effort, and a few their entire lives to the pursuit of peace, happiness, and fulfilment of supporting that school. Most of these people ask for nothing in return; it is simply a gift form the heart to under-privileged abroad. How criminal of Misplaced Pages to slap that kind of service and self-sacrifice in the face!

Not that I'm happy with any of this crap, but it should be pretty clear which part has me wanting to throw things.

Your thoughts? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of their self-published rant says it all: "Even Misplaced Pages will not give them a platform to speak their side of the story. " . That's right - we won't. That's not what we are here for. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the article had been unfairly biased in the past (as they claim) it doesn't mean we need to let it stand around in the future if it is unfairly biased the other way or if it doesn't otherwise meet our criteria for inclusion.  7  08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And since when is a website that has been constructed with Microsoft FrontPage really that viable, unbiased, and trustworthy? --MuZemike 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, just wow (after reading that site). I'm struck by the irony that while the site rails against white supremacy groups it uses very similar language (see the comment about jewbytes). Just your typical rant site. In other news, I'm going through the SIST article pulling out the obvious unreliable sources, replacing some with CN tags. I'm then going to go through the article again for BLP and copy-editing and will watch it to make sure anything added meets WP standards. What a mess. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also ironic: the fact they cry out against "slandering" then promptly describe the "murderous Catholic Church"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• And finished with the initial pass. Wow - some of the sources were just simply horrible. I'm not sure about the rickross.com source, but I think there have been some discussions on RSN about it that I'm going to search for. Page watchlisted, commented on AFD and will monitor. If the SPA's continue to push badly sourced POV edits, I would not advise blocking them, rather full protection of the page to force them to use the talk page to discuss, at least initially. Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a general rule: Anyone who anthropomorphizes an encyclopaedia is unlikely to be factually accurate in other matters too. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Two having it out

Sarsein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
༆ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edit warring regarding Burma/Myanmar/Siam wars (multiple articles: see user contributions) Using warning templates (a bit excessively, I'd say) I can not figure who is in the right (if any). Would someone please help with this? Also, it would be nice if user talk:༆ would have a user name that doesn't look like a box. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the pages, and this comment doesn't relate to the ANI issue, but just out of technical interest I believe that "box" is Tibetan Mark Caret Yig Mgo Phur Shad Ma which only displays in Unicode. The user presumably is unaware that it's a box on 99% of systems. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article histories is not pretty. There's been revert warring involving at least four editors and a selection of IP addresses going on across at least seven articles (histories: , , , , , , ).

Having said that, on closer inspection it looks like a POV battle between a single IP-hopping editor who has also edited as Thaizokku (talk · contribs) and Sarsein (talk · contribs), and ༆ (talk · contribs) and Hybernator (talk · contribs). IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein's edits are in poor English and seem to be pushing a particular POV (which may be anti-Burmese though because of the language issues I'm not completely sure about that). They've also crossed 3RR on a number of occasions; I'm not sure that ༆ and Hybernator have, although given the number of edits I could easily have missed something.

Regardless, I think IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein is probably someone we can do without. I've blocked Sarsein for 24 hours for edit warring and (procedurally) Thaizokku indefinitely (I realise Thaizokku is the earlier account but it looks like it may have been abandoned).

༆ and Hybernator are strongly reminded that the only exemptions to our edit-warring policy are listed here; none of the content you were fighting over comes into that list unless you can point to a banned sockmaster behind the disruption (and even then the sock accounts should have been identified and tagged). In future, rather than edit-warring please report problematic edits here or to an appropriate noticeboard. There's plenty of help available so you needn't feel that you're alone in keeping Misplaced Pages free from POV content... and therefore there should be no reason for you to end up violating site policy yourselves.

Finally, if problematic edits resume I'd be open to indeffing Sarsein, protecting the articles, or looking at the feasibility of a rangeblock for the IP addresses (or some combination of those). EyeSerene 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some experience in Burmese and Thai articles, so when I get home from work (6 hours or so) I'll look at everything and see if I can't knock some sense into everyone involved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the more subject-expert eyes on the situation the better :) While Sarsein's edits were less than optimal and the manner of them was problematic, at root this appears to be a content dispute and that element at least is out of ANI's jurisdiction. Policy violations aside there's always the possibility that some of the disputed content changes were good. EyeSerene 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If it helps at all, ༆ (talk · contribs) and Waorca (talk · contribs) are the same person. TNXMan 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tnxman307. I'm not seeing any signs of tag-teaming or other abuse using the two accounts, but of course a second opinion would be very welcome. In any case I think ༆/Waorca would be well advised to read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and take any necessary measures to notify the community/an appropriate person that they operate both accounts. EyeSerene 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Sarsein that continued attempts to push his blatantly pro-Siamese POV here will result in an indefinite block; ༆ doesn't have the greatest English skills, but at least his edits are somewhat useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Update; someone want to check out Wongsathorn (talk · contribs)? Seems amazingly similar to Sarsein. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into things. I've indefblocked Wongsathorn due the the deafening quacking, and upped the block on Sarsein to indef (the fact that they've gone on to create a new account to evade a 24 hour block is not indicative they want to play by the rules). All accounts apart from the IPs tagged accordingly - I suggest we block additional accounts on sight. Thanks again, EyeSerene 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, content creation

A well documented RFCU provides evidence of chronic disruption by TBrandley (talk · contribs) by creation of inappropriate content which consume wikiresources via the deletion process. User was notified, has chosen not to participate, and continues to create additional content, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_She_Solved:_True_Crime. Nobody Ent 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is forced to participate in an RFCU, and you would be hard put to find an admin willing to act at this point in time. I've warned him about his only truly blockable behaviour (creating hoax articles and user pages about "Tateland" and the "TB Network"). I'll block him if he starts doing that again, but otherwise you should just consider him to be one of the many hyperinclusionist editors on Misplaced Pages.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments and contributions. Surely there is a problem under WP:DISRUPT that goes beyond an enthusiasm for creating articles. The editor submitted an AfD for Disney Channel Hong Kong after his own, similar articles had been AfD, then, inexplicably, created a spurious redirect DCHK to the article while the deletion was under discussion. This is very WP:POINTy. In general, the editor does not take account of feedback from other editors--the essence of WP:DISRUPT. The articles in wiki-space presenting fictional TV networks named after himself suggest a lack of understanding of what WP is for, raising questions about WP:COMPETENCE. So I think more is going on than just being inclusionist. Some of my best friends are inclusionist :). Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think while it's true that no-one is forced to participate in an RfC/U, they are a fairly good sign of widespread concern and an indication that community patience (or at least that portion of the community dealing with the editor concerned) is wearing thin. Failure to participate can also be seen evidence of "I didn't hear that"-type behaviour and has factored into decisions on sanctions in the past. That said, the RfC/U has only been open for two or three days. It might make sense to give TBrandley a little more time to respond, assuming they've even seen the notification in that wall of deletion notices that constitutes their talk page. Like Kww I'd be inclined to block them immediately for any further hoax creations, and block them eventually unless they make some sort of positive acknowledgement—at the RfC, here, their talk page or anywhere suitable—of other editors' concerns and moderate their editing accordingly. EyeSerene 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Another question about this IBAN

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

I am going to say this once and only once so hear it now and I believe I speak on behalf of the community here: If you two don't figure out how to leave each other alone, you're going to find this IBan leading to an indefinite block. I (we the community) don't want to hear your excuses. Be more careful in your editing.--v/r - TP 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconding this. Very tired of seeing either name crop up here, which they do with distressing regularity. Kim Dent-Brown 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thirding it. Clearly other admins are far more tolerant, because frankly I would have indeffed both of them by now for repeated wasting of the community's time and effort. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem again

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

Honorsteem (talk · contribs) opened a discussion on this board a couple of weeks ago (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel_Pipes) and (in a unanimous decision) was eventually blocked for "his abuse of clean start, disruptive editing and the fairly well supported idea that xe is hounding Jayjg". Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Honorsteem_Blocked. He asked to be unblocked on his talk page, and after several attempts at getting unblocked, which failed because of his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and WP:NOTTHEM violations, he was eventually unblocked. He very first article edit was to revert me at List of Jewish Nobel Laureates, as was his third edit at Party for Freedom.
Regarding the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates article, after his revert was in turn reverted by someone else (he objected to having List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients as a "See also"), he then decided to add a number of other links, including a link to List of Jewish American mobsters. There are, of course, dozens of lists of Jews on Misplaced Pages; the link to this specific article, out of all of them, is quite obviously just combative and needless provocation.
Regarding the Party for Freedom article, the material itself is an obvious WP:BLP violation, as he knows from the earlier discussion on his Talk: page. Moreover, his insertion uses Misplaced Pages's voice to describe to specific individuals as "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim", something their Misplaced Pages biographies obviously do not do.
It appears to me that Honorsteem has learned nothing from the earlier AN/I thread or the discussions on his Talk: page; on the contrary, he seems to still view Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that further administrative action is appropriate. Jayjg 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CLEANSTART...means new username and avoiding old haunts and editors...that isn't the case here it appears.MONGO 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One sec here ... Honorsteem has acknowledged that his was NOT a cleanstart, it was a mere change of usernames (done the wrong way). He was not required whatsoever to stay away from "old haunts". However, continuing a previous battle made no sense - but I'm not seeing how this is indef'able (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Periyar (river)

There is a legal threat at Talk:Periyar (river), here and it was repeated in a recent edit summary relating to the article. I've warned the user but my regular go-to admins appear not to be around at present and I am unsure whether anything more need be said. Can someone take a look, please? - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. Cheers. Salvio 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Good, obvious block. Kim Dent-Brown 21:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I waited a bit, while searching for any admin in the non-existent cabal. Within moments of posting this report, three of them revive their activity. How weird is that? Are admins actually buses? Sorry for sticking the thing here. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bus, I'm a taxi: I need to be summoned... Salvio 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't go south of the river this time of night, guv... Kim Dent-Brown 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And now they're essentially trying to say they've sicced the Indian government's cybercrime Division of Truth on us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They are a contributor with few edits, practically every one of which has been reverted and discussed on either or both of their own talk page and the various article talk pages. I rather think that they are a bit lost with the policies etc but I am not the best placed person to turn the situation round. Does the Division of Truth trump the Division of Verifiability? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Howabout90

By policy, the "location" parameter is not to be used in the infobox if the taping location is located in the country of origin. User:Howabout90 wilfully refuses to comply with this policy, as evidenced in the revisions linked below:

•First time the user re-added the parameter.

•Second time the user re-added the parameter.

•Third time the user re-added the parameter.

•Fourth time the user re-added the parameter. And this is where the user backtalked at me in a disrespectful manner after I told him to stop. I even linked the rule AGAIN.

This is where I had to quote what the policy states before the user wilfully chose to continue warring.

This is the fourth time that I have had to explain the policy when reverting the user's edits. I apparently had to bring the case here because I'm tired of reverting edits whose rules are CLEARLY STATED, having to explain & link them multiple times now. This is what the policy states (not what I think the policy means), as administrators have had to explain the parameter to me in the past. Though there are revisions in the article regarding a different edit warring case (which has been closed since), that has nothing to do with this edit war that is being caused by Howabout90. Despite what the recent revisions show (as of today), this is not my intention to cause an edit war. I'm just reverting persistent vandalism (reverting edits after constantly explaining the policy over & over. It is Howabout90 that is unwilling to cooperate.). MegastarLV  (talk)

The template documentation says: "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above." I read this to mean that if the country of origin is UK for example, one should not repeat UK as the location. However where the location is more specific, eg Pinewood Studios I can see the benefit of putting this in - even though Pinewood is clearly in the UK. It's not a duplication of information but an extra level of information. So I think your opponent is in the right here. This is in any case a content dispute, not really for this board. But if you're happy with that ruling we'll leave it there. (If not, please try WP:DRN.) Kim Dent-Brown 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the template documentation is badly worded, leading to these sort of disputes. I think it would be better to say "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if you only know country and it's the same as country of origin above." (bold is my addition).  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I've been bold and made the change.  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, administrators, if you noticed in the revision history of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Howabout90 thought he could avoid this case by deleting this section, which I have re-added.  MegastarLV  (talk)

User:MegastarLV

Over the past week, MegastarLV has been reverting edits that I have made. The edits that they have made are not needed and I have to keep reverting them. It is completely ridiculous that they are now reporting me for something which they started. –Howabout90– 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

<Unnecessary bickering removed by administrator> Kim Dent-Brown 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea; both of you cut it out now. MegastarLV, "No, you stop" is hardly friendly, but it's certainly not completely beyond the pale. Both of you; the article talkpage exists for a reason. Use it. If you continue to shout at each other here it'll take a considerable amount of convincing not to just block both of you for 24 hours. Seriously, it's just a parameter in an infobox. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS madness

Favonian has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he is unfit to be an admin. The latest thing, this asinine article renaming with no consensus, does nothing but make wikipedia (and him) look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• You'll have to explain why that is an asinine renaming. --John (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • • • Because there's no consensus and it serves no purpose. As well as possibly being incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it seems entirely in line with the cited policy. What's up, Doc? Kim Dent-Brown 00:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Admitting that it took me about a minute to see the difference, I'd agree that the move, while ultra-pedantic, is correct. Encyclopaedias are meant to be pedantic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If the actual title is not spelled that way, then the so-called MOS "rule" is "original research". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover is all caps, are you suggesting we follow it exactly and have all caps here too?  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The copyrighted sheet music and the record itself, which are visible in various places on the internet, have it this way:

I'D LIKE TO TEACH THE WORLD TO SING

(In Perfect Harmony)

Invoking "manual of style" to override the actual title amounts to original research. OR is against the rules. FYI, I only knew about this because the article happened to be on my watch list. Things are on my watch list to check for vandalism, not to worry about whether someone is going to impose some new OR title on something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So you'd just like the article title to have the first eight words in caps? To do otherwise would surely be OR?  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You will find other versions where the first line of the title is in mixed case. What you won't find is the "In" in lower case - except on wikipedia. Meanwhile, Favonian was too lazy to change the article content, so now it doesn't match the title he moved it to. Thus making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article fixed. Thanks  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you've renamed it back to its real title, all you've done is perpetute the mistake and continue to make wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, you are calling someone unfit to be an admin because he corrected capitalization in an article title? Didn't we topic ban you from the notice boards already? If not then perhaps we ought to consider it now... You'll have to get your dose of drahma somewhere else. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs is under a self-imposed ban per this but arguably it covers AN only rather than AN/I. Still Bugs, take a chill pill mate, this is not the issue to mark your return to the dramah boards. Kim Dent-Brown 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the ban clearly cites AN/I and has another six days to run. Bugs, very sorry but you have shot yourself in the foot here. Reset of ban to one month from today? Kim Dent-Brown 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. The so-called "ban" doesn't exist where I'm affected. And Favonian owes me. I'm still waiting for his apology, or even any kind of acknowledgment, for having compelled me and another user to raise a huge brouhaha at Commons in order to reverse an extraordinarily stupid decision he made some weeks back. He's got no business being an admin... and this allegedly MOS-driven renaming, at the possible expense of making wikipedia look even more stupid, demonstrates it yet again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How are you directly affected by a title change that changes the case of one letter? Kim Dent-Brown 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff you linked specifically identifies "ANI". Powers 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There was no opposition to the move registered in six days of discussion (I withdrew my opposition as I'd misremembered the MOS rule). I am stunned by Baseball Bugs' phrasing: "Yet another stupid decision by Favonian. See you on WP:ANI." The decision was correct per consensus and per the MOS; if BB has a problem with the MOS, this isn't the place to contest its contents. Powers 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I raised this issue to bring up the continued arrogance of the admin Favonian, who this time as with the previous time not only refuses to back down from a wrong decision, but also stonewalls us. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I personally agree with Bugs' position - changing the capitalisation on a title, name, or any other thing which the creator and the rest of the world capitalises one way, because "Misplaced Pages says Misplaced Pages capitalises it this way", is WP:OR at its most blatant. It's not Misplaced Pages's place to dictate how something should be spelled or capitalised, but rather to use the spelling and capitalisation used in sources, and for spelling and capitilisation, primary sources are acceptable. That said, though, I'm not at all sure I agree with his presentation of that position, and have "no comment" on any bans' existience, proposed extensions therof, or anyone's fitness to be an admin or lack thereof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bushranger and Bugs. The move may have been "ultra-pedantic" in Misplaced Pages terms, but when MOS conflicts with reality, reality must win, because -- well, because we're an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should reflect reality and not create its own. The new title is incorrect, and the article should be moved back. I disagree with Bugs that the move has any particular relevance to Favonian's ability to be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • First, the MOS does reflect reality, in that is one form of proper Capitalization, even if it is not what the product says it is. But the largest issue is that because page moves are seemingly more disruptive than standard edit moves, the MOS standardized this specific form of capitalization as to avoid not only edit warring on titles, but to make sure titles read appropriately within text, to prevent "fan" versions of names with wacky variations, product names that claim to be all caps when not an acronym, and other nonsense that would otherwise make prose a mess. Yes, it seems silly in this one particularly case, but its sorta necessary to prevent that "leaking" to other cases. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This isn't a "fan" version, it's the title as published. You're trying to justify original research based on a false premise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am saddened by this, as the Bugs I know would've done a "This is MOS madness you maniacs" header. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• This late in the game, there isn't much I can add by way of explaining my actions, except to emphasized that they were done in good faith. It may be unrealistic to hope for a general consensus defining the demarcation line between MoS and other considerations, so unpleasant situations like this one will keep occurring as they have in the past.

Though I prefer to stay out of the topic ban discussion below, I will raise one complaint. Bugs claims that I "stonewall" the community, presumably because I haven't responded before. I live in the Central European Timezone, and it was 00:44 when the notice concerning this discussion arrived on my talk page. At this point I had retired for the night, my last edit having been made half an hour previously. Not even the considerable amount of noise made by the OP was able to stir me from my slumber. Favonian (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs, coming here and raising this issue in the manner that you do makes you look silly. Think about that. I quite agree that there are people around here whose thought-free and robotic application of arbitrary house style rules actually results in the introduction of outright factual errors into the encyclopaedia, or other damage. But that doesn't make them unsuitable to be administrators. It makes them unsuitable to be encyclopaedists — something that isn't addressable by removing administrator tools. Moreover, in this case, as in so many other cases, you shouldn't be focussing on the discussion closer, but on the people who took part in the discussion itself. They, not Favonian, are the people who actually hold this erroneous view. A group of people were convinced that it was more important to conform to a manual of style than to consider what the actual real world facts are. A further person then took the view here that agreement between title and body was a more important consideration than factual accuracy, too. They are the true problems, not Favonian. Address the problem at its root, not via the proxy of picking the person tasked with implementing such group decisions and laying the entirety of the blame on that single person's shoulders.

  To that end, I add: A quick Google Books search turns up contemporary issues of Newsweek and Billboard, from December 1971 and 1972, that both use "In" rather than "in" and don't use all-capitals. They have the name exactly as per the pre-move article title, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Extension of topic ban for BB

Per the diff above, Bugs was topic banned for one month from AN/I on 8th February, except for matters here directly concerning him. He brought the report above which clearly does not directly concern him (never mind its lack of support from others) and really this couldn't be a clearer case of a topic ban violation. I really like Bugs' contributions but AN and AN/I have been a more orderly place this last few weeks. Propose an extension of the topic ban for a further month from today. Kim Dent-Brown 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. The complaint is about an incredibly trivial issue, but presented in an incredibly over-the-top manner that exemplifies why Bugs was compelled to take a break from AN(/I) in the first place. I would also endorse an extension of more than one month, given that the original topic ban seems to have done very little to reduce Bugs' taste for drama. (Honestly, a trivial move request is unopposed for a week, Favonian closes the unanimous request and carries it out, and suddenly we need to desysop him for doing something that seems to follow the instructions in the Manual of Style—really?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I like bugs too but there's no choice here. Not only does the complaint not directly affect him but it seems far away from something requiring admin attention. On top of that it's just plain rude; if this is indicative of an action that makes one unfit to be an admin the I dare say we'll have no admins soon enough. Nformation 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It was a *self imposed* topic ban. So he broke a promise, that is not a reason for a ban extension. We all sometimes make promises we don't keep because of our habits (just think of our New Year's resolutions, which are often negated within two weeks after the year's beginning). Not to mention politicians breaking their promises on a daily basis. S_peakF_{ree (contribs)} 03:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - A self imposed topic ban is unenforcable. Trying to institute a true ban in this instance would be equivalent to proposing a full siteban for someone who retired and then came back and resumed editing later. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If it was self imposed, I'd prefer the action taken here to be to convert it to a community sanction, but not extend the length. At the same time, follow it with a "good behaviour bond" where it can be reimposed by any admin (with escalating lengths) if Bugs is judged to have overstepped the mark again. I'd like to think it was a one off and Bugs can demonstrate better self restraint in future. Begoon  03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bugs should have sat out the entirety of the ban, and chose a fairly trivial conflict to return, but a self-imposed ban cannot be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that BMK and several others take this view; a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all. By this reasoning, anyone can self-impose a ban to get the community off their back, then come back at any time they please with impunity. If this does develop as consensus I shall never be satisfied with voluntary, self-imposed bans on people in the future but will always pursue discussions to a community-enforced decision. Kim Dent-Brown 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It was self-imposed...but it was self-imposed to end a ban discussion in progress early. Violating a self-imposed ban shouldn't mean a ban (unless that's part of the agreement), but reopening the discussion could be an option. --Onorem♠Dil 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• comment - it was also self-imposed after the unblock. IJS — Ched :  ?  04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Since it was voluntary, no red card, this time. Bumping up to two months would really be better.
  The high volume of gadfly participation on pages such as this one is unhelpful; it results in a frothy mixture of jokes and bullshit that perpetuates a vicious cycle of drama. Alarbus (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Kim is quite right: a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all, and it would be not only quite reasonable for the question to go back to the discussion of an imposed topic ban, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that Bugs' word is no good, and that he cannot be trusted to deal in good faith. That being said, said discussion was nowhere near a consensus for a ban, and was running not a whole lot better than a simple majority in favor. In any event, it would be horribly abusive to endorse enforcing and extending a "ban" that the community never approved in the first place. I am quite sympathetic with editors tired of the drama, but as with most other areas of the encyclopedia, if you cannot gain a consensus supporting your POV - however worthy and true you're convinced that POV is - your POV does not prevail. Ravenswing 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bugs is rooly cool on IRC. Anyone who is so funny and makes fun of stuff I don't like and stuff must be perfect to build an encyclopaedia.101.118.20.230 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Effectively, the wrong thing has been asked here. You cannot extend a self-imposed topic ban. However, you COULD have asked for the community to impose a topic ban. None of the !votes above mean squat because the question was the wrong one. As my friend's daughter says "No, try again!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User Thai Striker

User Thai Striker seems to be attempting to circumvent AfD decisions. After the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 in kickboxing lead to the removal of that article plus the one for 2012, the fight cards for the events were moved under List of United Glory events, List of It's Showtime events, List of K-1 events, and I don't know where else. This follows the aforementioned discussion which showed those articles were an attempt to circumvent a previous series of AfD discussions. As pointed out in that AfD discussion by Mdtemp, Thai Striker appeared right after WolffReik's indefinite ban and started editing and restoring the same articles Wolffreik had supported and interfered with AfD discussions on. I suspect WP:DUCK. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Thai Striker is a possible sock puppet of a banned user (banned means banned), I have already tagged him as such. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just created an AfD for List of United Glory events, which includes List of It's Showtime events, before I realized this ANI existed. I did not include List of K-1 events as it seems like a more legitimate list of events than cramming deleted articles into a long article. Now that Papaursa mentions it, it certainly seems like a WP:DUCK situation for WölffReik (talk · contribs). There may be a possibility of re-opening Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik with Thai Striker (talk · contribs) as a duck and possibly Thai Land F (talk · contribs) as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason List of K-1 events looks OK is because user Frietjes already removed 21,000 bytes from that article. Otherwise it would have had previously deleted results like the other two. Papaursa (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The following users are  Confirmed as Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs) (as well as comparing editing behaviors):

• Thai Land F (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Maciej23tarnowski (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, both users have been indefinitely blocked. --MuZemike 08:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thai Striker (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as WölffReik (talk · contribs); as such, all article creations by Thai Striker and Thai Land F have been deleted. --MuZemike 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by IP

92.148.172.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I suspect to be an IP hopper, has engaged in personal attacks and incivility targeting me and Edward321 (talk · contribs) today on the Whisper of the Heart talk page and in his/her edit summaries, involving baseless claims that "the previous edits are wrong", "my editing is poor", asking for my actual name, denying that he/she is an IP hopper, that I am "keen to maintain control of a fairly unimportant Wiki page, to the point of being wildly, blatantly, openly rude" and "owning the article" while I don't know Edward321 and follow WP:OWN, and also shouting in edit summaries which are not allowed and completely disrupting the article with a non-NPOV information (this also occurred on the Take Me Home, Country Roads article () and The Cat Returns article ()), which we tried to help bring it down to a more concise version, and bloating up the plot summaries in the relevant film articles per WP:FILMPLOT. The edits by the IP are a clear violation of the relevant policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:TPO, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:SOAPBOX. The attacks continued despite the notice at the Film WikiProject talk page and Betty Logan (talk · contribs) requesting an WP:RFPP on Whisper of the Heart. I started this discussion to help resolve the dispute, but the IP remained incivil and attacked me and Edward321, and added an non-NPOV statement at the Yoshifumi Kondō article. These are differences showing his incivility and issues with the policies in question: , , , , , . The NPOV and NPA issues are urgent, and I cannot tolerate these insults anymore. I had to bring the case here due to the IP's abusive behavior per the suggestion of Betty Logan and I need a solution to help resolve these issues. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I requested a semi protect on Whisper of the Heart (film) but it was turned down on the basis of there not being enough recent disruption. While that may be the case over the last several hours, it has been going on for 3/4 days as you can see from the edit history and there are a lot of problems with the IP edits. The IP clearly isn't having a positive effective on the article; I still think a semi-protect is the order of the day, at least until the IP learns to play nice, since I don't think a block against an IP hopper would be very effective. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Even more incivility and insults has been shown by the IP in question and I agree that it is not having a positive effect on the article at all despite my efforts in calming the user down. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reporting a trouble maker

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

65.95.51.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Hi, I came a across a abusive user who is messing with the sandbox which you can see at this link here. If you further look at his contributions, you can see that this user has been making threats against me and if you want to see its talk page here, you can see that I gave this user multiple warnings to stop and the threats that the user is creating. Pardon the bad words the user is typing. Also, you can see the editing history of the user's talk page here where you can see additional threats the user made. Despite the warnings, the user continues to threaten me and mess with Misplaced Pages and I really need help. 67.169.167.201 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the best solution is that we block 65.95.51.14 for his incivility and threats, since both are not tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a couple of days. Swarm 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Banned wikipedia user Grundle2600 is wreaking havoc offsite

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

I am a long time member at the message board Free Republic, although I would rather not reveal my account name that I use over there. I just wanted to let you know about this thread over there that was started by wikipedia banned user Grundle2600, where he is very critical of wikipedia. Also, since he admits that he copied the text from wikipedia to the Free Republic site, is there anything that wikipedia can do about this? He did write the text himself, so I'm not sure who would be the legal owner of the copyright.

(I can't seem to post the actual URL here, so please replace the dot with a . and remove the spaces.)

freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2853412/posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly Freeper (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

why should Misplaced Pages do anything other than ignore this, as the vacuous whining of a nonentity that it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's already banned from Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure what you're asking us to do. — Ched :  ?  06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated blatant copy-vio against all advice

Ilovechoclate (talk · contribs) had started to upload copyvio images at the article on Jayne Mansfield (this, this, and this among many) and edit-warred to keep those images. The user was repeatedly explained on the user talk page and article talk page that copy-vio images should not be uploaded, and was once blocked for edit warring (here). While that has stopped for now, the user has taken the drive to upload copy-vio images to the commons, as well as other pages like Dean Martin (here) and Clint Eastwood (here). This I would believe needs serious intervention now. Aditya 06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already had several of their images deleted off of Commons before. If anyone here has admin rights on Commons, they can likely check that. Dismas| 06:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, this person has learning disabilities. You may need to take that into account before taking any administrative action. --MuZemike 08:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but competence is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: do we have anyone on board who has Real-Life experience in "translating" for people with learning difficulties? That might be all that's required, either short-term, or as a more long-term mentor. Pesky (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding, in my own experience, people with learning difficulties can take a bit longer to "get it", but once they have, it sticks. Pesky (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with people with learning difficulties. Tips. Avoid passive constructions. Use simple and compound sentences. Use concrete nouns. Avoid jargon.  Tigerboy1966  11:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Also, when giving instructions, a numbered or bulleted list works better than a paragraph of prose. Tigerboy1966  11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've been clear, patient and gentle so far. This image stuff has to stop. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue concerning User:Green-Halcyon

This is concerning the actress Lina Polito. A little editor war with Green-Halcyon and User:Cavarrone. Fault appears to lie with Green-Halcyon... doesn't leave comments, doesn't respond to a talk message, reverts an edit, twice, that removes a valid source, among other reverts. Green-Halcyon just placed a AfD tag with "Subject appears to lack notability. Sources indicate that she is a real person, but there is little evidence to indicate that she is significant enough to have her own Article page." IMDb lists 39 different acting roles and a simple Google search brings up alot of links.

The day before the two first met with Andy Luotto. Green-Halcyon added a BLP sources tag and then did a revert because "You need to provide page numbers for specific facts, and a summary of the internet link in english" This is how it looked before Green-Halcyon tagged it.

I've had issues in the past with Green-Halcyon. I've asked him three times to leave an edit summary when he makes an edit. He was adding speed delete tags and prod tags without an edit summary and notifying people. Green-Halcyon is now using twinkle.

There is also other problems with his edits. At the very least, Green-Halcyon needs some talking to and guidance. He has already blown me off, so I don't think he will listen to me. Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, all Bgwhite has wrote is correct. Can I just add, I personally have no doubt the edit-warring and the current AFD nom of Lina Polito are caused by the previous Andy Luotto dispute. And about his general behavior, at best, he ignores a proper tag-use, placing tags that are unrelated with the problems he (correctly or not) feels are needed to be addressed. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing personal intended by placing those tags on the pages, I do it because I genuinely think the subjects lack notability or need more references. Since the problem has been taken this far, I will stop what I'm doing to the pages. As for not leaving edit summaries... I actually do, every time where other editors need to know what how I contributed to an article. Sorry if I came across that way at one time or other, but when did I blow you off Bgwhite?Aunty-S (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling of Talk:Hezbollah

We've got some joker apparently using multiple IPs to re-post an inflammatory comment on the talkpage.

• 77.42.224.194
• 77.42.137.61 ,
• 77.42.189.248

I thought it worth mentioning here as the editor has been careful in using the three accounts so possibly has some awareness how AIV works. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 10:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how they are inflammatory? The person I was having a discussion with didn't seem to mind, and there are far worse things written on that talk page. And perhaps It didn't cross your mind that I have a dynamic IP address and I'm not "a vandal trying to escape ban through multiple accounts"--77.42.189.248 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Please read them. Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is already bad enough. I don't think your comment helped. If you are concerned about the neutrality of article content you can help to improve it. Your comment won't achieve anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The discussion at AFD, here and here is perplexing. There isn't much to support the article's inclusion, but in the meanwhile there's a lot of unnecessary Wikidrama driven by the article's creator--a lot of it displays lack of familiarity with guidelines, but attacks on other editors' motives and credibility are becoming tiresome. Help appreciated. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

X!'s accounts locked

Following a report I determined that several accounts belonging to User:X! had their password available in a configuration file for all the toolserver users to see. A user, by negligence and not intent, logged on User:SoxBot and made a few edits. I determined that the accounts User:X! and User:MPUploadBot were accessible in similar manner. While thankfully User:X! had no permissions on it at this time, User:MPUploadBot is a flagged adminbot. Acting as steward, I have locked all 3 accounts pending hearing back from Soxred, who I have contacted. The interested files have now been properly secured on the toolserver in the meantime. I would like to thank TParis for bringing the matter to my attention, Addshore for the necessary assistance and WMDE personnel for the fast action. I am notifying it here as the matter involves an account with the sysop flag. Snowolf 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I also want to note for users who might not be familiar with the concept, that a global lock on an account prevents even logging on on said account, and as such no deflagging of the sysop account was necessary. I also note that thankfully no abuse took place. Snowolf 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards