Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 17 September 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?

Disruptive editing by Eff Won

IP 50.11.44.190

User-multi error: "50.11.44.190" is not a valid project or language code (help).

After listing him at WP:AVI, it was declined and recommended I go here. Editor refuses to explain/communicate his frequent/mass arbitrary MOS changes that are inconsistent and vary with each article. Includes unexplained content removal and incorrect changes to country name abbreviations; refuses to follow guideline for US and UK abbreviations (explained at his talk page). Ignored templated messages and personal message asking him to use edit summaries and explain his edits. Examples: 1, 2, 3. After final warning, he removed a comma from an article. The subject of these edits may be petty, but they are incorrect and either the editor doesnt know how to read , or they are delibaretly making incorrect edits. How else should I go about with setting this user straight so he stops making disruptive edits? Numerous warnings over two months, two attempts at AVI (first wasnt considered vandalism) didnt work in stopping him from continuing changes that he should know are wrong. A block would definitely get his attention if the "new message" popping up doesnt. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently even after another "last warning" by another user just now, the IP made the incorrect abbreviation change here. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit here replaced "and" with "&", while previous edit here vice versa. Constantly does this. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify the IP of this topic; I've done it for you. Second, it's going to be really hard to get most admins to block an IP at WP:AIV based on style as it's not obvious vandalism. Third, I know these things can be frustrating, but the best thing you can do is spend more time on the IP's talk page explaining specifically what's wrong rather than templating the IP, particularly with vandalism templates. I know you did that in one paragraph, but it was swallowed up by the templates. Also, the thing you picked on ("US" vs. "U.S.") is hardly the stuff that makes or breaks an article, and, honestly, that table could be a bit clearer. There are lots of editors who use "US" - I don't like it, but it certainly isn't the end of the world. I'd focus on stylistic edits that you think are more "serious", and I'd open a separate section on the IP's talk page about it. If the IP still doesn't respond, you are more likely to find a sympathetic admin because of the trouble you went to to educate the IP and because of their apparent lack of collaboration.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I did notify him (); you overlooked it. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right; it was sandwiched between two templates. :-) My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If these templated messages dont count as effort, then why are they available? I'm not gonna waste time talking to someone who clearly ignores me. Forget it. I'll just keep reverting him. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The templates are useful, but in these circumstances, if you went to just a little extra trouble and started a section (so things aren't buried in between templates) about the problems and they still didn't respond, an admin would be more inclined to block (at least this admin would).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan, I've added a comment of my own on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say if the IP continues doing the same without responding (which it seems like they haven't) then a short block would be acceptable. As Bbb said on their talk page, it's very difficult to work out issues when the one side isn't communicating at all. I glanced through the /16 and didn't see anything else blatantly obvious, but it's pretty active so I could have missed something too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the invitation here, the IP has continued with the unexplained MOS edits, reverting here, removing here. Didnt respond, continued with some of the same. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted a bunch more MOS changes and dropped a warning for MOS and a notice for edit summaries on the editors talk page. This has now been going on for an extended period of time and the editor has still not made any effort to communicate with other editors. Andrew Kurish (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken it to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. We need Admin intervention at this stage.Sudar123 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the DRN volunteer in the case. Never been involved with Sri Lankan articles and I have no position on the civil war, but this was straightforward WP:OR. The statement that Himesh84 wants to include isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Himesh argues that it's implied, but that's exactly what makes it OR. The other editors involved in the case (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself) agreed that a source was needed that explicitly stated the claim. Instead of finding a new source, he's edit warred on the article. This is worrying, given how sensitive and controversial the topic is.--SGCM (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read over the DRN discussion and looked at the article's history. Even though a unanimous consensus was not reached (Himesh84 refused to budge), it seems clear to me that Himesh84's proposed changes are being objected to by several other editors and not supported by anyone else. And even though a DRN process "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions", I would propose there is more than enough reason here to insist that Himesh84 should carefully explain (on the article's talk page, not via an edit war) his objections to the current wording of the article, and not make any more attempts to impose his changes on the text unless he can first convince other editors to agree with him.

My first impulse was to say that this looked like a content dispute / edit war between two factions (with neither one being right or wrong) — but on further reflection, it seems to me that it's a case of one editor against several, with an all-but-unanimous consensus being rejected by an individual who is argumentatively restating his position (as opposed to discussing it) and has been repeatedly edit-warring in defiance of consensus. Himesh84 needs to step back here and consider that even if he is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he needs to do a much better job of explaining why there are problems with the existing text and why he believes certain changes need to be made. Drop, for the time being at least, any arguments based on dictionary definitions of common English words, and try instead to understand why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK, and focus your comments on why you believe there are major problems that require changes. If you think there is an NPOV problem with the current text, that may be a valid issue, but it needs to be discussed (and, if necessary, escalated through established dispute resolution procedures which do not involve repeatedly making changes which everyone else objects to). If Himesh84 refuses to change his behaviour, is unable to mould a revised consensus through a genuine give-and-take discussion, and insists on going back to edit warring, he needs to be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. — Richwales 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said, I strongly agree with your assessment of the dispute. DRN is an informal, not a binding, process, and serves as a noticeboard for building consensus. When consensus has been all but reached, with the exception of a single editor (the one making the edit in contention), then that editor needs to engage the other users by directly addressing the policy arguments. Edit warring and criticising others for not understanding the English language (example: "This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning (sic) of the English words") are not conducive to consensus building. To be fair, it takes two to edit war, and Sudar123 should not have responded to Himesh84's behaviour.--SGCM (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, and I concur. Both sides are already in edit-war-block territory and should desist, but it is clear that Himesh84 has failed to gain consensus for the change he wants to make, either at DRN or on the talk page, and any further attempt to make it would be disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereced). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Misplaced Pages administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Misplaced Pages without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to promote or defend any countries. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to include a claim, find a source that explicitly states the point you're trying to make. There is no conspiracy going on. I and the other volunteer, Jobberone, have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles, and don't have any positions on squabbles between Tamil or Sri Lankan supporters. The DRN case was closed because you did not make any arguments on the applicability of policy, and failed to convince any of the other editors of your position, leading to filibustering.--SGCM (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But is Misplaced Pages is to spread wrong image about countries using outdated reports ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the 2nd party involved in this edit war. It was between Himesh84,Obi2canibe and later Sudar123 joined to the edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring.--SGCM (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Highly disagreed on that. Dispute solved means, all the parties involved in the dispute must agree on the solution. If all the persons except one person agreed to a solution it doesn't say it is the correct decision. Some of the Aristotle's observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. Before that all said Aristotle is wrong. It is just an example. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity, which on Misplaced Pages is nearly impossible. When all the editors share a similar viewpoint, with the exception of one, and that one editor has failed to use policy arguments to support his position, then there's no need to continue filibustering a DRN case. My advice, which I honestly hope is helpful, is that you'll respond by directly addressing policy arguments, or by finding a new source that explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for. One of Misplaced Pages's core principles is that it is based on verifiability, not truth.--SGCM (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If a core principle says it is not about truth why/how the hell Misplaced Pages claiming it is an encyclopedia ?--Himesh84 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages like all encyclopedias is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. It does not have the resources or the editorial oversight to make claims, true or not, only to report claims made by others that are verifiable and reliable. This is why original research is not allowed, and why it is considered a core principle of the site.--SGCM (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UNSG report has very dangerous recommendations which could severely affect sovereignty of Sri Lanka. UNSG's implementations suggest to bring Sri Lanka to an international court and give a solution in there. The final decision from the international court can be anything. Even creating new country "Tamil Ealam" is also possible. Ealam Tamils want to divide Sri Lanka and create new country with proposed name "Tamil Ealam". They tried to get the approval of the UNHRC to the report but failed. Still they used this report to spread bad impression saying this is the mostly accepted approach to solve the problem. But LLRC is the officially recognized and selected implementation. But still the Administrator approved version says there are lot of International recognition to the SG's implementations. Even it includes recognition of countries who voted to LLRC implementation in UNHRC. This version gives completely wrong idea. This wrong version can create very bad image on Sri Lanka which can later affect to tourism,... hit Sri Lankan economy and create a separated country. That's why this wrong and outdated version needed to correct.

I know why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK. Because they supporters of Tamil Ealam. They have a plan. That's why they refused to accept that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementaion over SG's implementations while even Sri Lankan government received a letter from UNHRC to asking implement of LLRC recommendations. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on talk page --Himesh84 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh, please assume good faith and do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in a conspiracy or is on the other side in your political dispute. You have explained your position at length, on the article talk page, at DRN and here, but you have not convinced anybody. Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, and it is now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. This report criticize Sri Lankan court system and law. But UNHRC asked to implemented LLRC which based on local court system. It is officially asked by a letter. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But your Misplaced Pages page showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talking about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Misplaced Pages company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. I am not asking why Tamil diaspora not accepting LLRC. But why Misplaced Pages company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But your site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead --Himesh84 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for The Truth, it is not a place to Right Great Wrongs, and as mentioned above you really should drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is more nuanced than simply "majority opinion rules". Misplaced Pages's policy is to seek a neutral point of view — which, to quote the policy, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not supposed to be deciding which viewpoint represents "the truth", presenting only that view and marginalizing or ignoring all other views. If there are two or more significant views represented in reliable sources, we are supposed to explain that there are differences of viewpoint and explain the different views.

There are, to be sure, sometimes still potential problems with implementing this policy. The available sources (particularly English-language sources, since most editors and readers here will be primarily familiar with English) may not cover the various aspects of a controversial foreign situation adequately. Certain kinds of sources — such as, in this case, statements by the Sri Lankan government, the LTTE, individual spokesmen or critics, other governments in the region, or even UN bodies or officials — could be inherently biased and not usable as reliable objective sources of information (except perhaps as information about what a given government, agency, or person thinks about the situation).

Additionally, we are forbidden here to engage in our own "original research" — including, in particular, synthesis of multiple separate sources to create a claim that isn't backed up by any one source on its own. Sometimes the line between OR/SYNTH and commonsense understanding of plain English can be hard to draw, but when lots of other editors are complaining about OR/SYNTH issues, chances are there is a real problem with the way someone is trying to use the source material in question. In such cases, the best answer is usually not to belabour the point by insisting that our reading of the materials is obviously correct and that everyone else is being dense.

The point of seeking consensus is not to determine "truth" by majority vote. Rather, if all (or at least most) editors are trying to follow the policies, we assume that a consensus (maybe not unanimous, but as close to unanimous as we can get) are most likely understanding how the policies apply to the situation at hand, and their collective judgment is probably the most suitable way to deal with the issue being worked on.

I would urge Himesh84 to very carefully study Misplaced Pages's core content policies (namely, "Neutral Point of View", "Verifiability", and "No Original Research"), and come back to the article under discussion here with a way to describe the UN report that acknowledges and explains all the various viewpoints — based on what as many different news sources and scholarly treatments say about the matter — but without taking sides, without injecting your own personal observations or opinions into your writing, and (if at all possible) writing in such a way that someone reading what you wrote (and knowing nothing else about you) would not be able to tell where you personally stand on the issues in question. Until you can do this, you are going to find contributing to Misplaced Pages to be frustrating, if not completely impossible. — Richwales 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you didn't get me. I have understand Misplaced Pages policies. I understand that there is a serious problem in the Misplaced Pages policies which can't claim it is a encyclopedia. Ban ki Moon added the content of his report to the UN 2011 report. Two months later, after UNHRC vote , without having an option Ban ki Moon had to changed his position and supported to implement LLRC implementations. Countries officially responded at the UNHRC vote. But these Misplaced Pages policies still showing the picture before the UNHRC vote. Lot of countries officially changed their standard and voted to implement LLRC implementations at UNHRC. Now those countries supporting LLRC not UNSG's recommendations. Since they voted to implement LLRC at UNHRC there shouldn't be any doubt about that. I am not asking to create new policies of the private company called as Misplaced Pages. But with these policies Misplaced Pages can't claim it is encyclopedia. It can give completely opposite picture.

As this wikipedia policies can't prove UNHRC chose LLRC recommendations over UNSG's recommendations, same policies can't use to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Mr/Ms Rich's orders even Obama is the selected one in the presidential election. Sudar,Obi2canibe,SGCM can say Rich didn't participate to the US election so don't use the word "over". Can you ever find a source to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's order over Rich's order? But what will happened in the real world when you , Obama give opposite orders to pentagon at the same time ? Will pentagon give any recognition to you ? If they always accept Obama's orders why Rich has to given this much of wrong recognition by the Pentagon ? . This is not a encyclopedia. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states the claim you want to make. Use quotations if you have to. The government newspaper is a good start, but it has to be attributed properly so that it meets Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policies. And please don't lump me in with the other editors as if to imply there's a conspiracy against you. I wasn't initially part of this dispute until the DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Himesh84. Rich is right when he says that Misplaced Pages is not a vote. Consensus is established, not by the number of users, but because of the success or failure to use the applicability of content policies to argue a position. There are many constructive ways to respond, like arguing why or how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has not occurred or by finding a new source that explicitly states the claim you're trying to make. Quote from the source if you must. There are ways to argue constructively, and I hope the advice by all the editors here has been helpful.--SGCM (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84 has quoted a Sri Lankan Government Minister's view in the Sri Lankan Government's Official Newspaper - Daily News though it is well neutralised by User:Richwales. But the second source Himesh84 has quoted contains many important facts about the LLRC and the Sri Lankan Government. I have added some of the important facts from the second source since LLRC is quoted in the lead para of the UN Panel's Report.Sudar123 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following.Sudar123 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The UN resolution calls for an “action plan” from the very government that is responsible for the military’s killing of tens of thousands of civilians in the communal war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as other gross abuses of democratic rights. President Mahinda Rajapakse set up the LLRC to fend off international criticism and whitewash the government and the military. The Sri Lankan government lobbied heavily against any resolution calling for even limited action on human rights. Within Sri Lanka, the government has used the issue to stir up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment, claiming that the country is the target of an “international conspiracy.” After the UN resolution was passed, President Rajapakse told a public meeting that “Sri Lanka, as an independent country will not give into any arbitrary interference in its affairs.” Rajapakse’s real concern is that, if it suited Washington’s interests, his government could quickly become an international pariah in the same manner as the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Moreover, he and his ministers could suddenly find themselves facing trial for war crimes.

World Socialist Web Site is not a reliable source, anymore than the official government newspaper.--SGCM (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Waacstats - AWB Abuse

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

This user has been warned about AWB abuse before about rule number 2 (editing too quickly), but continues to do dozens of edits per second with it. Therefore, I'm requesting that action is taken. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the user contributions between 21:59 and 22:45 on the 14th Sept too Waacstats (talk · contribs) Lugnuts 09:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Err, have there been any actual problems with the edits? Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts - you conveniently forgot to state that the warning was from you - there have been no community warnings/sanctions. Waacstats' AWB edits frequently appear on my watchlist and I've never seen an issue with them. GiantSnowman 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 95.9.73.143 at 2012 Pakistan garment factory fires

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

95.9.73.143 has made numerous POV and unsourced changes. Too many to list. Check the history. Requesting 48 hour block while story is on ITN. --IP98 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They are doing good-faith edits and are likely unaware of our sourcing requirements and policies. Their talk page is a red link - no one has tried to communicate with them at all. You did not even notify them of this discussion, which is required. Before you request a user to be blocked, you should tell them on their talk page what they are doing wrong and try to educate them. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've gone ahead and placed a Welcome and some other linkage (including a Teahouse Invite) on the IP's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat against me

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

Before I begin, I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm fairly certain this issue can be resolved through simple dialogue and discussion. Since wikipedia policy is to report legal threats I'm doing so out of an abundance of caution. (Also I'm just a real stickler for following rules. :-)).

Background info: I removed several links that had been added by User:Morim madrichim. All of them were to the same website, which said user claims to be the executive director of.

• May 23: User:Morim madrichim adds three ELs, I revert: and leave the following note on Morim madrichim's talk page:
• Sept 10: New links were added to three other pages, I reverted and left a second warning
• Sept 14: User leaves this note on my talk page: , which includes a legal threat in the last paragraph. I will be responding to it shortly. I'm sure it can be worked out amicably, but I wanted to make sure appropriate notifications had been made. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Total overkill at this point. the editor is brand-spanking new to wikipedia (like <20 edits new). At least give him/her one chance to have things explained. Generally people resort to legal threats when they feel they're being treated unfairly. I hope that by explaining the EL guidelines and the rational behind them the editor will see the come around. A second threat and I'm right there with you, but for now it's unnecessary. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user can't be allowed to edit at all unless that legal threat is retracted, and since we don't know when, that leaves an indefinite block. If the user understands NLT, then they should post a retraction to be unblocked. Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of NLT cases come from new/unregistered users - a hard bite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not overkill. Cut and dried: retract the legal threat or continue your legal actions (but not while editing here). Very simple. Being a new editor is not an excuse for a legal threat. Looks like a spammer trying to force an EL anyway. Doc talk 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see spamming for commercial purposes, but the WP:ORGNAME concerns are obvious.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a huge difference to me: not necessarily the dictionary definition of a "spammer", perhaps. My bad :) But whether it's "Buy our widget!" or "Go to our website!", it's all really about getting exposure instead of building an encyclopedia. Doc talk 01:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blade regarding the indef - legal threat yes, but it's also an organization's account to self-promote. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the member believed it within their right to make this legal threat, but it is clearly a full blown threat at a specific member over edits on Misplaced Pages. If the editor can retract the threat in an unambiguous statement he may well be unblocked, but we do these blocks for a very specific reason. I am unclear if the rest of his statement may or may not also be a problem with proclaiming an advocacy or promotional purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Spamming can take many forms and it's not restricted to links to sites of organisations that exist for financial gain - promotion is promotion and our rules are clear enough. The legal threat is blatant and such a theat is not only against one user but against the entire community. Where I would probably have issued a stern warning with a demand for retraction, I see no reason to question Blade's admin discretion blocking immediately as a reaction to this being reported. While User:Bachrach44 is to be commended on his caution and neutrality, he must also understand that issues are reported here because they require admin action and that's what he got. He would be advised in future to issue more incremental warnings and wait for user response before filing for action. User:Morim madrichim is perfectly entitled to appeal the block in the normal way and could be unblocked if and when he both retracts his legal threat and understands that Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In hopes that Morim will do so, I've left him a COI warning and a WP:NOBLECAUSE notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• • • I don't disagree that this is spam (I did after all revert all his original EL additions). I guess I interpreted WP:NLT differently that others here (and I will know for next time). I understood "legal action" to be an action in a court - a lawsuit or something similar. I didn't think that legal threat was considered a legal action. Again, I understand now and will know for next time. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's why the policy is called No Legal Threats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DanielUmel on Syrian Civil War articles

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

DanielUmel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred, added glaringly one-sided info that misrepresents sources, and attacked other users on articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

On the article Battle of Al-Qusayr, he added this one-sided story which misrepresents what the source says and ignores key info. Myself and User:I7laseral reverted him twice each. For doing so, he accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth" (see here). I re-wrote what he had written to make it more neutral and in line with the source, but he reverted me. When I wrote to him about his behavior, he again simply accused me of supporting Islamist terrorists and trying to hide the truth (see here).

DanielUmel has also been edit warring on the articles Rif Dimashq offensive, Darayya massacre and Al-Nusra Front (in the latter he ignored WP:TERRORISM). He has been reported four times for edit warring since 26 July.
~Asarlaí 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of edit warring — taking material that could be of use and making it useless. Obvious civility problems, to boot. DanielUmel could use a time-out from editing on articles related to the Syrian Civil War. --Jprg1966  03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add that to remarks as this (which win the "I don't even think you tried to keep your POV in check" award) and the bad-faithed, disparaging talk headings I changed here and here. See also any of 4 3RR reports filed against him: . Additionally, he has made virtually no edits whatsoever outside of this topic area since his explosion onto the scene at the end of June. An acronym beginning with S and ending with PA comes to mind here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DanielUmel is now removing reliably sourced info from Lijan militias and adding in his own spin on the story (see here). He's just doing more of the same thing on yet another article.
Note: I moved this topic back from the archives as the user's behavior is continuing and it is still being discussed. ~Asarlaí 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the creator of the Lijan militia page and I try to protect it against your manipulations. After manipulating the Qusayr page to make it look like christians were not expelled by muslims when it was clearly the case in the source, you are now completely making up a deal that the Syrian Army has made according to you but this "deal" is nowhere in the source you provided. Blabant manipulation.

Your first report was dismissed and now you try the same again for the exact same motive when you are desperately following me everywhere trying to spin pro rebel versions in sources that state the contrary. You never make any constructive edit by yourself, you just follow other people and try to sugarcoat and hide every sentence that could make rebels look like bad in your eyes --DanielUmel (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the talk page of Qusayr article. When Asarlai listed number of issues that is with his edit (OR, NPOV mainly) , Daniel repons was typical. He accused several editors of bad faith (defending radical extremists among others or saying how it is campaign of something) and never reacted on any of the point Asarlai listed. He never bothered to say what is wrong with the edit, defending his own version by reacting on issues which were pointed out, but rather simply attacked a whole group of editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And he managed to do it on ANI as well. That´s smart. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking through this editor's edits I see persistent edit-warring up to and including 3RR, insistence on including material in articles that isn't supported by the sources (i.e. Battle of Al-Qusayr), incivility, and (a minor point) poor writing degrading the content of articles. Previous block was 72 hours - I have blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Racist and unconstructive

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

User:58.167.45.229 has made racist edits to a talk page here, calling Muslims "sand monkeys." The IP has been blocked in the past for racist comments like this, and has been warned repeatedly. Edit history also shows that edits are not constructive and are often either racist or stuff like "lol" in the middle of articles. <-- Activism1234 (talk · contribs) 05:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead? Blatant vandalism from an IP can be dealt with there, racist or not. —Jeremy v^_^v 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I already posted it there. We'll see who zaps him first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me (unless someone took my bet seriously). --Activism1234 06:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's been almost an hour and nobody's done anything about it, so you can see how effective it is to take it somewhere else for "faster action". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated personal attack after disruptive Userpage posting.

Viriditas has begun a bit of a personal attack on me by accusing me of "lend credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to another film called Innocence of bin Laden" Which sources and the article itself, Innocence of Muslims have all reported as the same film with a "previouse" name. I see no reason that I have been singled out in this manner discussing me and not the edits, except to continue disruption begun earlier on my user talkpage where he became disruptive enough for me to tell him to stop further discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. Personally, I'm sick of ANI. If anyone wants to block me, have at it. I could care less. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors and good content contributors and know the rules about civility & PA, blah, blah. Beware of the bent piece of Australian wood and just get it sorted out between you or simply stop interacting with each other. Nothing to see here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but a boomerang isn't "bent" but rather carved to shape, and need not be wood but may be e.g. bone. Also, you fail to distinguish between returning and non-returning boomerangs, ignorantly lumping them all together. You are obviously here merely to lend credence and legitimacy to fake ideas about indigenous Australian culture. Why, you ought to be blocked! EEng (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually did forget to let the editor know of the discussion here. That is my fault. And yes, we should both know better, blah,blah, blah. But I should add I am really sick of coming here and getting the Boomarang mention as almost a threat for even bothering to respect this board...a mistake I can assure you I will never make again. But thanks for the reality check. This board is near worthless when you just seem to use your own awkward and disrespectful attitude to cut short any attempt of an editor to reach out. Now...did you also want to threaten a block for talking back? Perhaps a good tongue lashing. Please, show how much more this has become a place to ridicule those "experienced editors and good content contributors" with absolutely no help at all. Thanks and I guess you are already happy editing so no need to suggest it further.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note about the incivility on the talk page of the article. These types of events always bring out the worst in people. No reason to go overboard with sanctions, but no reason to overlook the incivility either. More of a WP:WQA issue than ANI, but these articles are (and should be) under higher scrutiny due to them being current events, so extra eyes are A Good Thing®. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks to shortsightedness, WQA no longer exists. This is only about 4 things this morning that belonged there dangerouspanda 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

An alternative account of an admin

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

There is a User who is using an alternative account that makes it clear on his main page to the wiki-community the following statement: "This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry."

• The reference to "someone with tens of thousands of edits" refers to a legitimate wiki Admin.

Before I reveal any names of specific users, I would first like to open my case with this question:

Is the alternative account of an admin allowed to refer to oneself as an admin in order to influence the behavior of other editors?

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Before you go any farther (and, by the way, AN/I is not a court of law): has the account you refer to been disrupting Misplaced Pages in any way? Is it editing against policy? Has it been used to create a false consensus with multiple accounts? Is its editing tendenitiously? Has it done anything to attract your attention other than to be an alternate account of an admin? Have you written to the account to find out if there's a valid reason that they're using an alternative account? Have you even talked to the editor before posting here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, you're clearly referring to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves, an alternate account of User:Bwilkins, so why the bullshit buildup? If you got a "case" against this editor, present it, with evidence in the form of diffs, but if your entire case is about sockpuppetry, forget it, it ain't going to fly, and you're just going to waste your time and ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Administrators allowed more or less latitude in the use of multiple accounts? Or does that depend on how they are used? Perhaps these are inappropriate questions for this forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Many times, thanks. But perhaps you could confirm exactly where those two questions are answered. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, I know that AN/I is not a court of law. I expressed that wordage in quotes on the User's talk page as "court", which was a reference to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's comment at User talk:Joefromrandb#ANI Notification on 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC): "If you'd like to explain why you took him to court before you even asked him about it, it might be helpful." So it seems to me that User: EatsShootsAndLeaves believes that ANI is court. I thought it would be cute to add the jasonasosa vrs. EatsShootsAndLeaves for that extra kick.
• Anyway, I must present my case here first to prepare my case for SPI because there is an unknown variable. I am seeking ANI to determine if User: EatsShootsAndLeaves is an admin, or if this account has admin rights. He has led me to believe that he is an admin or has admin rights who I feel is harassing me on my talkpage at User talk:Jasonasosa#Why are you being difficult after a dispute had been closed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has been harassing me on my talkpage all the way up until I posted a notice on his talkpage for ANI of which he closed. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure nobody here would want "two Admins for the price of one", would they? Or is that how it works? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does. What's the actual issue here? GiantSnowman 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Payback for some (real or imagined) slight? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is all rather pointless. Bwilkins must link the alt. account to his main account, which is an admin account. He was even more vague about it before, and got dragged to ANI for that. Now he is being dragged here because he is being more specific. I have alt accounts that link to my main account, and my main account clearly says I'm an admin. Is that abuse? For that matter, any time I edit an article as an editor, they can go to my page and see I'm an admin, which might "intimidate" them, so should I remove all references to the fact that I'm an admin? If you want to actually report some violation of policy, then open a new ANI but I suggest this be closed as being without a cause of action. I also don't see that the user has made a good faith effort to discuss this on the talk page, which is unfortunate. Speaking as someone who works at WP:SPI, to call this sockpuppetry is not only incorrect, but laughable, as clearly everyone knows that EatsShootsAndLeaves is Bwilkins. I'm confident that it will be closed as having no merit, so you are wasting your time with an SPI case as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's statement on my talkpage, "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" as a threat in conjunction with the following threat "just answer the damned question" about why I posted to ANI without discussing it with User:Joefromrandb first... a case that I apologized to him for and the matter is now closed. User: EatsShootsAndLeaves wouldn't drop it and even posted comments outside of the closed space on thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has a theme of learning me by saying: "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future" and "I'm trying to teach here". By what authority does he have to learn me? The bold statement that he made: "Just answer the damned question" suggests that if I don't answer his question, I am to expect something adverse. I'm sorry, but no matter how much he justifies this, I see this as a threat. Please consider my dilemma. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're here to force an apology? Good luck. Not only is a forced apology worthless, because coerced, but there's no way to require one editor to apologize to another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an admin, just a rank-and-file editor with a considerable amount of experience, and "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" sounds like something I might say to another editor. It's not a threat, it's a 'prediction from experience. You're well within your rights to ignore the prediction, and make your own decisions about what to do -- but then you can hardly complain if things don't work out the way you want them to.

Ignoring experienced editors – whether admins or not – is probably not the best idea: survival on Misplaced Pages does involve a certain amount of understanding of how things work, and ignoring that seems foolhardy at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As already explained to the editor (before this thread even existed, I think) "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" meant "the intent of ANI is to deal with actions that require an immediate block of another party. An accidental removal (or even non-accidental removal) of text is not an immediately blockable issue". dangerouspanda 10:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not looking for an apology. According to User:GiantSnowman, "EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does." However, according to User:Dennis Brown both are the same. Do you see the conflict of interest? As I asked initially opening up my case... which is it? Does the alt user have admin rights? Can he act as an Admin? Can he call himself an Admin? To really make this clear, should EatsShootsAndLeaves be viewed as an admin? and can he act the way he did on my talkpage to force me into learning by him? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

On EatsShootsAndLeaves' user talk page, you wrote "I've taken you to AN/I for your action", but here, you're waxing philosphical: how many admins can dance on the head of a pin. What "actions" are you complaining about? What is your complaint? If you just want to kick around philosphical b.s., go somewhere else -- this board is for "incidents". What's your "incident"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ES&L is a legitimate alternative account. What conflict of interest is there? As I have already told you, ES&L has no admin rights. Either make an actual case here - soon - or I'll close this thread as pointless. GiantSnowman 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A few points here to remember (and learn?)

1. Being an admin in and of itself holds no special weight in arguments (their knowledge of policy does)
2. All editors are equally accountable for helping other editors learn "how things work" around here
3. All editors are supposed to resolve issues at the lowest common denominator first - the other person's talkpage is that place

dangerouspanda 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on what I gather from this post, I've learned from everyone's comments here that:

1. An Admin and his alt account are one in the same.
2. After a dispute is closed, you may continue to harass others about the closed dispute.

Thanks all for your input. You may close it now.   — Jasonasosa 10:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by 107.6.114.84

I moved this over from WP:AN, because it's more of an immediate incident requiring admin attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

107.6.114.84 wrote " It is no surprise that this bias is present, given the Admin linked at the top of the talk page is "Nihonjoe", who is clearly pro-Japanese.". After the post was removed by other admin, the user posted another section saying "I am sure payments from the Japanese Government are involved. ". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need temporary semi-protection on Talk:Senkaku Islands. There's a lengthy story here, but the short version is, after the latest RfC on the name of that article earlier this year (which found, again, consensus for the current title), an admin decided that there could be no more discussion of the subject of the article title until 2013. This was done under the discretionary sanctions that apply to this issue, as issued by Arbcom. Since the IP has now hopped and refuses to leave off the issue, I don't see any other way to prevent the disruption other than temporary s-p. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And, while this is looked into, we could probably use semi-protection back on the article, since as soon as it fell off, an IP tried to change the name again. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur on using {{pp-vandalism}} for the article and suspect it should be permanent. It'll make it easier to topic-ban as needed. There's a dispute between the countries of Japan, China, and Taiwan about these islands resulting in strong feelings among some citizens. Those feelings have spilled into Misplaced Pages editors resulting in this ANI. It seems unlikely the dispute over the islands will ever be resolved to the full satisfaction of all parties which is why I suggested permanent protection.

I'd disagree on protection for the article's talk page. An IP editor was venting their feelings/opinions about the issue of a perceived bias in the article. Apparently the IP editor noticed that another editor and WP admin, user:Nihonjoe, was involved. Nihonjoe self-identifies on his user page as an expat who had lived for a time in Japan and also uses that self-identification in his name as "Nihon" is Japanese for Japan. The IP editor suggesting that a Chinese admin be involved in the article to bring balance. I did not see that as a "personal attack" on Nihonjoe. I suspect the IP editor is not aware that any regular user-name editor can make changes to the article assuming pp-vandalism is re-applied. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semiprotected the article, and I'll keep an eye on the talkpage. Despite my signature, I can assure you (and some people from Wikimedia NYC can confirm) that I'm a white American and have no reason to care one way or the other about this dispute in any capacity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please indefinitely semi-protect Senkaku Islands dispute too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I got it. Horologium (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As the person who posted on the talk page, I still insist the article lacks a NPOV, and Misplaced Pages as a whole takes a stance antagonistic towards China on each and every issue. However, I've vented my frustration now, so I'm over it. I'll desist from using Misplaced Pages altogether until the article's title is revised to establish a NPOV (as has been done well with the Liancourt Rocks article). There's no point banging my head against a wall any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.247 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been accused of being Japanese, Korean, and Chinese by various people, so I don't really care what the IP editor thinks. One look at my interactions on any of the disputed islands/rocks/specks of dirt these countries are fighting over will show you I'm very careful to be very neutral in everything I do there. I've warned and blocked people on every side of the issues (almost always because of stupid nationalistic ranting or edit warring). Also, I should point out that I'm not the only admin listed at the top of the page, so if someone thinks I'm not being neutral on the issue, they are free to ask one of the others (or any other admin, for that matter). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Catperson12

Catperson12 (talk · contribs)

Reported this user to AIV. Long term disruption, with many of their edits necessitating reversion. No doubt often well-intentioned, but persistent change of content, always unsourced, edit warring without engaging other editors' concerns, with no use of edit summaries to explain actions. History of warnings, some final, with a block. None of this has slowed the account's pattern, nor induced a desire to discuss their edits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you've been here only a week, it would be best if you provided some diffs to show some specific disruptions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me that I've been here, in fact, for more than seven years. Later I may have the time to assemble diffs, but is there a reason that reporting this as an IP requires more specific substantiation? For the moment, your warning of May 25 underscores that this account has been receiving negative feedback for a long time . 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with your being an IP, only a lack of context. Obviously, as you note, I had an issue with that editor also, some time back, and decided to quote Mike Ditka. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was Ditka--I've been watching baseball, in which,as we know, there's no crying. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Stop it!" is obviously not original with Ditka, but it's a short, humorous editorial segment he's been doing on ESPN NFL Today for the last couple of seasons. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I declined to block based on the AIV report, mainly because there had been no recent warnings. User:De728631 took the extra step of adding a warning. Catperson has madde no edits since that warning. The one block occurred three months ago. And, @76, the answer is no, the fact that you're an IP does not create a higher bar for a report here, but all editors who report misconduct here should provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bbb23. I've been around long enough to know that you and Baseball Bugs are valued contributors, and I appreciate the rationale for not blocking. As well, diffs are helpful. I came here because I believe that this is a problematic user who has chosen neither to engage nor respect basic guidelines, and believe that numerous edits have been either inaccurate or original research, and haven't improved the articles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a continual problem with Catperson's edits, it would be good to document some of it, for the reasonable likelihood that this is not the end of this story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. Here are some recent edits that were quickly reverted , , , , , , , , , , . These are invariably minor edits in terms of amount of content changed, but if they are not supported by references and require reversion, represent a greater nuisance than contribution. They're a time sink for those who have to trail along behind and check every edit, and for me, just to report this and list a few recent diffs. When I could be spending my precious time sampling ales. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And this ; my take is that good-faith edits are occasionally sprinkled among apparently pointless, nuisance edits, the kind which can and do fly under the radar for months.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's hard to tell whether those edits are true trolling or merely incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Comment: Catperson12 has one talk page edit and zero user talk edits. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

USER COMPLAINT: Jonat13

I got a user complaint against User: Jonat13, he's recently vandalize the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page and I had to revert his edits on friday and in the morning he still seemed to ignore the fact.

Yes making one related complaint regrading the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet, I made another one the last time, but it seems they did not do too much so I deleted the case last time but I will this time leave it like that.

Here's his recent edits from Friday on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet here at these links and he was very rude on his edit summary and vandalizing the page: ] ] ] ] ].

I admit I did get really mad at him as seen as this recent edit I made reverting his edits and did curse two days ago: ] but I have edit again and put a second summary for second administrators on this issue: ]

Yes I know I myself did the wrong thing by using cap locks but I got made that this Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page kept being vandalized a lot now and with this recent one, I decided that it's time for action to be taken.

However this morning, the "Jonat13" user had made a reply to me on the edit summary and still ignored the fact that he was vandalizing the page: ]

This user is wasting my time now and it looks like if he's trying to act like if he was not vandalizing the page when he is vandalizing the page.

I'm really start to get frustrated with User: Jonat13 and I would like a warning to be issued against this user on his (talk page) because whatever he's doing to the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page is unacceptable. In my opinion, I think user "Jonat13" should be watched, right along with User: DiasMi012 when editing the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or other pages, or should be banned from this website.

• NOTE THAT User: DiasMi012 Has not edit on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page for at least a week now, but he anyways should be watched in case he comes back or at least warned.

I'm getting tired of this user, I hope this case resolves the problem and find a solution on what can we do to take action against this user and that other user is he comes back to the page editing the rosters. My request for action against this user: Jonat13 to get warned, blocked from editing or permanent ban from Misplaced Pages.

This time I'll leave the case open to see what the staff of wikipedia decides on what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asloge (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, none of those edits are vandalism - please read WP:NOTVAND. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page, and I recommend page protection to make sure you two use the article talk page. It would also help if neither of you shouted at each other. More importantly, this isn't likely to go anywhere without the citation of reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

These kinds of articles are often poorly sourced generally. Often lots of edits from editors who live in the area and then report their personal observations. I try to avoid these articles, always wondering why Misplaced Pages is an alternative website for transportation services.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Asloge, looking at your previous comments from the past week, including all of the edit warring, I'm surprised that you have not yet been blocked. The same goes to Jonat13.

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet has been full-protected for 2 weeks. Use Talk:Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution to discuss content-related disagreements. Any further hostilities can result in users being blocked altogether. --MuZemike 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

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

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Misplaced Pages, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Misplaced Pages, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Misplaced Pages, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Misplaced Pages articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Misplaced Pages since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to block Jagged 85. Looking at the first half of the Video Game evidence, I can't tell whether xe is just unable to properly read sources, or is somehow obsessed with pushing a POV (though I can't quite see what it is, because I don't know what all of those games have in common (is it the geographic source of the company)? Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, the earlier massively bad editing on Muslim science issues caused very long term problems. People familiar with the whole story regularly had to stub or at least significantly trim articles because so much of them was based on Jagged 85's work; the problem then became that users not familiar with the problem objected to what they saw as removal of sourced info, and then on article after article people would have to explain what was wrong with Jagged 85's work, insist that no, it is not salvageable in any way, etc. The reason why Jagged 85's actions are so bad is that they resemble, on the surface, very good editing--adding well formatted, fairly believable information that appears to be directly supported by specific sources. This has to be stopped, and since it is now clear that it's not just a specific topic that's the source of the problems, the only solution is to remove Jagged 85 from Misplaced Pages. An indefinite block is certainly called for here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the video games evidence, I've removed the autopatrolled and reviewer rights as a bare minimum. Reading the 2010 RFC/U now. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern that emerges from the latest survey is that he is pimping various non-Western video games and their manufacturers (by necessity, these are mostly Japanese) with fake claims of various "firsts", "best-selling" and the like. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I was involved in preparing this (though completely unaware of the original RfC until recently), but I support an indefinite (permanent) site ban for Jagged85. As others have noted, he acknowledged that he faced being banned if he continued this kind of editing and nevertheless he continued, in a different subject area. Even if these kinds of edits constituted a minority of his edits as he has claimed ("cherry-picking" being an accusation he has often levelled at his detractors), the absolute number nevertheless means that the limited wherewithal of our video game editors cannot keep up with them. Further, in at least certain sub-areas, I hold that Jagged85's bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. The page above illustrates the kind of edits for which he was previously taken to task: making extraordinary and spurious "factual" claims based usually on the direct misrepresentation of his sources (and sometimes by using a source which goes against wider research, perhaps even common knowledge in the case of the Space Invaders claim). I also put together a second page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence (which has largely not been copy edited by other users), detailing his edits in-depth across just a few video game genre articles. It shows wider edits which added lesser or more subjective historical commentary, but with equally direct misrepresentation of sources. There is also a wide tendency to add purely descriptive information to history articles/sections to imply historical significance (Jagged85 denies this) and to use material and sources out of context generally. It also shows plagiarism to be a prevalent issue with Jagged85's supported edits. bridies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I am the other video game editor who has been looking into these issues. I first really began taking notice of Jagged 85 in January of this year when I noticed that a few of his edits seemed really out of whack based on my knowledge of video game history. I then began examining some of his edits over the previous year to video game articles and discovered a large number that needed to be reverted for accuracy. I then began following his editing progress on his user contribution page, which allowed me to catch a fair number of really bad edits within hours or days of their commission. This practice also led me to become aware of the original RFC against him in February 2012. I was quite disturbed at that time, because his MO on video game history articles appeared nearly identical. I contacted a respected video game editor known for his policy expertise and diplomacy about my concerns, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that this editor had recently left wikipedia permanently, as he has not been heard from since January. As I pondered what to do next (unilateral action not being palatable to me) I noted that Jagged's volume of video game history edits had declined by the end of March 2012 and that I no longer had the time to fact-check his contributions too closely. I therefore decided to keep an eye on him and try to catch particularly blatant looking problems, but not take further action. When Bridies first noticed the problem and decided independently to get involved on the original RFC talk page, I decided the time had come to take more comprehensive punitive action.

I can state from experience that while Jagged has made a small number of high quality edits to video game articles and a decent number of neutral edits, these are greatly outweighed by the distortions he has introduced. In fact, I did not realize how bad some of his abuses had become until gathering the evidence for this ANI posting because he was adding material so rapidly between January 2011 and March 2012 and adding specific bad claims across so many articles simultaneously that it would have taken weeks of work for a single editor to verify all of his edits individually. I do not know that he really has an agenda (though his pushing of Japanese games, sometimes at the expense of more well-known Western products -- a topic I chose not to delve into too deeply in the evidence I presented -- does give me pause), but he appears to be grossly incompetent both in his failure to understand the sources from which he draws his claims and in his lack of understanding of the historical and technological topics he attempts to engage with. I will not weigh in on what I think the appropriate level of punishment should be for his actions, but I firmly believe that his abuse of sources and distortion of fact has done great harm to wikipedia and must be stopped. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Jagged 85 also had a long-term interest in making fake claims about Japanese inventions, not just Muslim ones. For example List of Japanese inventions, which was almost entirely his writing, contained ridiculous claims like:

"p–n junction

A junction formed by combining P-type and N-type semiconductors together in very close contact. It was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989."

Akasaki invented/discovered some junctions used in LEDs, but by no means invented the p-n junction (and surely not in 1989). Another related and absurd claim made on that list was that Akasaki also invented GaN. GaN was first synthesized in 1932. Akasaki was three years old back then. What Akasaki's team discovered was that Mg-doped p-type GaN was useful for building bright LEDs. (Facts source: the introduction to Nitride Semiconductors and Devices by Hadis Morkoç.) Akasaki's contribution was described in Light-Emitting Diodes by E. Fred Schubert as "the first true p-type doping and p-type conductivity in GaN". That's quite a far cry from having invented the GaN substrate or the p-n junction, isn't it? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly remain unsure as to whether he is really biased or it is just a combination of incompetence along with focus area. He likes to add information about Japanese topics, and in so-doing has on several occasions distorted Japanese accomplishments vis-a-vis Western accomplishments in video game history and elsewhere, but if he chose to focus on Western topics he would probably end up doing the same thing in reverse. I still think its primarily an inability to engage in proper research that leads him astray and that it is easy to see bias in his work because that is a more believable explanation in some ways than his apparently staggering levels of incompetence. After chasing so many of his edits though, I really think he is just that inept. That is no excuse, however, and I think the community has been extremely patient in giving him opportunities to figure out his problems. The fact that he continued his sloppy research techniques in a different subject area after the previous RFC is somewhat mind-boggling. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty difficult to read remarks like this and still not see any extreme bias. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jagged 85 indefinitely. I'd usually wait for a response first, but given the history here, I don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind. The evidence is clear that they have engaged in long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation. They've been more than adequately warned for this precise conduct during the RFC/U, but yet have persisted in this behavior. Cleaning up after them has already cost massive amounts of volunteer time, and allowing him to continue to edit will only cause more time to be wasted on checking up and verifying his work, especially since a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources. In short, it is very far from a net positive to allow them to continue to edit. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a pretty clear community consensus for a ban. For the record, although he is interested in Eastern subjects, I don't think he showed a particularly strong bias towards them in his computer edits. The connecting thread in his edits is hype; everything he writes about has to be the first, earliest, most significant, most influential example. I don't however accept the argument that it's just incompetence with sources on his part. His standard method was to find a source which said X was a Y, and then use that reference to claim X invented Y (or was the first Y, or introduced Y, or was a significant early example, etc. etc.) Jagged_85 did that hundreds or thousands of times, and I find it hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing, especially when he apparently deliberately used references which were hard to check.

Claims to be first (or otherwise exceptional in some way) using bad references are what to look out for in any sock puppet discussions, which I suspect we may get. --Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Donfarberman

Donfarberman (talk · contribs)

This new (or 'new') contributor seems to be convinced that Misplaced Pages is some sort of leftist conspiracy, and that this somehow justifies (a) repeatedly deleting talk page comments at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, (b) making unsourced POV-pushing edits regarding the recent 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, (c) marking such edits as 'minor' - holding the opinion is of course entirely legitimate, but violating policy to 'fix' it isn't. Interestingly, the topics edited coincide very closely with another 'new' account User:Bobinisrael, and the two accounts are now 'conversing' on Donfarberman's talk page - Bob writes: "I initially thought you were an account created in order to caricature me in a negative light, because you're using some of the exact same language I've used". Personally, at this point, my 'AGF' has run out, and I'm inclined to draw a more obvious conclusion regarding the textual similarities, topics edited etc, and it thus seems to me that neither contributor (if indeed there are two of them) is here to do anything but cause trouble. I may be entirely wrong (It wouldn't be the first time), but I think it might be useful for an uninvolved admin to take a look, and whack me firmly with a trout if I'm being paranoid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another leftist conspiracy. Right, two editors can't agree so I must be Bobinisrael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sock of Bobinisrael (talk · contribs); WP:DUCK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Donfarberman is a concoction of a Misplaced Pages editor who intends to get me silenced. Several contributions I've made have already been maliciously hidden for the sole purpose of silencing substantiated dissent from the dominant narratives of articles I've criticised. I was instantly greeted with hostility here, and had some of my valid contributions dishonestly labelled as "soapboxing", "ranting", and "disruptive editing". So, my intuition tells me that Donfarberman is actually a fake account created by one of my detractors who fears my presence around here. The use of the phrase "leftist conspiracy" is suspicious and leads me to believe that there is an agenda here. I would be completely unsurprised if this is the case, given the infantile reactions I've observed to my contributions here. There was also some direct copying of language I've used in here by this new user which cannot be a coincidence, unless it's a sort of homage to me. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I guess. It's also possible that he is real new user. Either way, I'm unconcerned. My high quality contributions to talk pages speak for themselves.Bobinisrael (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality? What, like the nice little duet you've got going with Donfarberman on Talk:2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Add terrorism to title? You say "Welcome to the battle against the pervasive narrative of leftism that infects Misplaced Pages", he replies with "Any honest editors get scrubbed by the leftists, and it's a deliberate and systemic bias in Misplaced Pages". I think you are confusing quantity with quality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just end this. If you have something add Andy, go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• He just gave himself away. Little Freudscher: . TMCk (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the fact that he is probably a concoction of one of my detractors in order to falsely portray me as someone using a secondary account by literally copying some language I've used word-for-word, as well as some language from my detractors "leftist conspiracy", it's quite obvious what's really going on here. Predictably, desperate Misplaced Pages editors committed to preserving the echo chamber of leftist narratives have circled the wagon to cleanse themselves of someone who upsets the status quo. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Suuuure.TMCk (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked Donfarberman indef for being either a sock, or a joe job, based on TMCk's diff. Either way, they need to go away. No comment on whether Bobinisreal is the same person; it seems like the SPI is a better place to deal with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do an investigation and find out who was operating the account. I strongly suspect it is one of the accounts I've listed, who've made no efforts to hide their hostility to me. As I've said, I strongly believe the account was deliberately created by one of my detractors in order to slander me. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify (I said something similar, though perhaps not as clear, on your talk page), Misplaced Pages policy does not allow us to conduct "investigations" like you are suggesting. If someone has specific diffs that indicate similarities between two accounts, they may request that a Checkuser investigate the technical signatures of those two accounts--things like IP addresses and such can be compared to see if, in fact, they are likely to be the same actual person. However, policy explicitly forbids using checkuser tools for fishing--that is, we are not allowed to look at an account and then try to search for the identity or for other accounts that are similar. There are exceptions once someone is confirmed to have socked multiple times, but those obviously do not apply here. So, there's no way for us to "investigate" who is operating the account. In any event, it has been blocked, and an investigation as to whether or not the Donfarberman account is being operated by you is proceeding (since there is evidence of that being at least possible presented here). Finally, if you do believe you have specific evidence, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI to open an investigation on another user--the way you tried to do it before was incorrect, since you actually made a new Misplaced Pages article about those editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being dishonestly accused of operating two accounts.

There is a new user by the name of Donfarberman who, if not a legitimate new individual, is a concoction of someone on Misplaced Pages wishing to silence me for providing articulate and substantiated dissents on articles. I have reason to suspect that Donfarberman was created by either 68.15.38.69 or capeo, although I strongly suspect it is either Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, 2001:db8, or to a lesser extent possible AndyTheGrump. There has been nearly exact copying of language I've used in recent contributions to talk pages that seems to be deliberate in an attempt to falsely associate me with this new user. I cannot say that I am in the least bit surprised to encounter this infantile behaviour if my suspicions are borne out to be correct.Bobinisrael (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

go to WP:SPI, file a report, this isn't the place. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...and thanks for not notifying anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just let the SPI do it's job. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just...odd. Bobinisrael has certainly been disruptive, so it's impossible to WP:AGF here. This looks like some sort of ridiculous trolling+related sockpuppeting to me, successfully getting attention and wasting everyone's time. But that's for SPI to determine. Bobinisrael: if you want to open SPI cases against me and the other named parties...go for it. That's what they're there for, if someone is actually sockpuppeting you. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think complaining about being 'dishonestly accused of operating two accounts' works very well when in your complaint you go on to accuse others of sockpuppetry in the wrong place and without any specific evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Evanh2008 harassment, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks

I have been accused by 74.115.210.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of "throwing accusations around willy-nilly", "treat people like piss", and " many socks that do bidding". Since he has so far been unwilling to start an AN/I thread himself, I have done so for him. I believe some diffs relevant to his accusations include the following: , , and... yeah, I think that's it.

I look forward to some outside input on this matter. Thanks for your time. Evanh2008 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed this happening too Evanh. The IP restored content back on your talk page even though you chose to remove it. And the uncivil swearing from the IP isn't exactly helpful either. Wesley♦ 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Wesley. Also this] may be relevant, since it is where most of the accusations were made. Evanh2008 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) has just imposed a 48-hour block on the IP for disruptive editing. Looks like a simple open/close case. Wesley♦ 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) 38.78.194.6 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The above IP geolocates to "anonymous proxy". What does that mean? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it translates into English as "this place would be a lot better if sign-in was required". But on a serious note, this guy utilizes proxy servers worldwide on a regular basis. Ignoring him doesn't help; he just wants to piss me off. Evanh2008 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to put a cork in Ann Proxy (see below also), or is it all over the IP map? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See this. Or maybe don't. It depends on what level of bullshit tolerance you have, I suppose. Evanh2008 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) 38.78.194.6 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You could fix your stress problem by leaving. So what's keeping you here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if multiple IPs are quacking the same tone at the same user, then it is 99.9% obvious trolling. Make sure the boomerang doesn't smack you on the way out. Wesley♦ 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That boomerang might knock him senseless, if you'll pardon the redundancy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours, but I don't know enough about proxies to know if blocking for a much longer period is needed. If they just come back with another IP I guess we'll have to semi this page again. Will you idiots stop feeding the troll? That's 4 edit conflicts I've had, with nothing productive from the IP, or Wesley, or Bugs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the complaint sat there for about 40 minutes before someone decided to take some action. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Idiots"? Nice. Have a look here. The last few confirmed open proxies (211.154.83.36 (talk · contribs), 94.56.129.24 (talk · contribs)) got blocked for a year, not 31 measly hours. 94.72.252.104 (talk · contribs) got 3 years. Ain't learning fun? Doc talk 03:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • • I was once blocked for 5 days for calling some editors "idiots". Civility standards have kind of taken a dip since those days. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like we should probably add 195.254.135.153 (talk · contribs) to that list. Also reported at WP:OP#195.254.135.153. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have semi-protected User talk:Evanh2008 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) for 3 months. I think the fact that the disruptive comments continued two days after the previous protection expired is telling. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Article editor and mass creation of strange redirects

Article editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled across the contributions of this user today and was left scratching my head about a significant number of the hundreds of redirects created by them. These include bizarre neologisms as Middle Eastern Republic (red. to Israel), flat-out misdirects as Far East (region) (red. to Middle East), and downright silliness as Cheeseburg (red. to Hamburg). A number of them are weird geographical anachronisms, like Republic of Carthage (Tunisia, apparently) and Anatolian Republic (Turkey?). A vast number of them are over-transliterations: e.g. Nikita Sergejevic Xruscev, Nikita Sergejevic Hruscev, Nikita Sergeevic Xruscev, Nikita Sergeevic Hruscev, Nikita Xruscev, Nikita Hruscev, Nikita Sergejevič Xruščëv, Nikita Sergejevič Hruščëv, Nikita Sergeevič Xruščëv, Nikita Sergeevič Hruščëv, Nikita Xruščëv, and Nikita Hruščëv all redirecting to Nikita Khrushchev. I just nominated around 30 for db-r3 speedy deletion, which User:Malik Shabazz promptly executed, but this is still quite a bit out of hand. This seems to me to be good-faithed but grossly incompetent. Something should be done, I feel, but I'm not sure what. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested mentioning something to him before coming here. Perhaps address this on his talk page, and remove all the spam you left there. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He had been pinged for a discussion here and here already with no response, so I didn't really think that a productive path (taking into account the sheer size of the issue at hand as well). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A discussion was started Sunday (Sept. 9) at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion#Ridiculous redirects, although the user doesn't appear to have edited since Saturday (Sept. 8). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The question had been raised first on Sept 5, though (see the first link in my comment above). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit-warring, meaningless POV edits, and refusal to use the talk page by one editor at South China Sea

User:Fabyan17 has been making a series of controversial edits to South China Sea without proper discussion with other editors. There is an ongoing edit war, with this user blindly reverting my edits without even looking at them (even reverting maintenance edits, such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS), and his edits have an obvious Filipino-centric POV (the user has written that Sabah of Malaysia belongs to the Philippines, amongst other things). User has been suggested to use the talk page multiple times, with no result. Two users, myself and User:Bazonka, have had to fix up some of his problematic edits. User has been warned multiple times on his talk page. See diffs: , , , , , . Also, the user's signature includes the word "bot", which if I am not mistaken is against signature policy, since one can mistake the user for a bot. (His userpage states that he is a "Bot Moderator".) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: User has just made 4 reversions within 24-hours, violating WP:3RR: , , , . -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User complaint: Benlisquare - Re: Using derogatory words against editors

On the South China Sea article, the user User:Benlisquare is making edit summary statements that are derogatory in nature. Labeling and name-calling the editing skills of moderators, with degrading words such as "mindless", "centric", "damn" and citing the nationality of the user in a disruptive way. Such comments are violative of journalism ethics and unprofessional. It also a clear violation of the Misplaced Pages:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. The user's current status of being a college student reflects immaturity to the guidelines of work ethics, and should be guided accordingly.

Here are the derogatory words used by the user:Benlisquare

(cur | prev) 07:38, September 17, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,572 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (Undid revision 513081639 by Fabyan17 (talk): another MINDLESS POV - M-I-N-D-L-E-S-S P-O-V edit. Since when did calling out the nature of an edit become "derogatory"? Use the damn talk page.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:36, September 16, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,568 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (revert: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with two other editors, mindless Filipino-POV centric editing. Take it to the talk page, that's what it's for.) (undo)

FTSantos ©Bot 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding signed comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

I have nothing else to say, everything I need to say has already been done here. I'll leave it up to the community as to whether I get hanged or not, there's nothing else worth adding from me, apart from the fact that this situation is quite frustrating and anger-causing. Sigh. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, on second thoughts (after reading that chunk of text), I do have something to add: "and citing the nationality of the user" - pot calling the kettle black? Also this diff. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan 17 replies: Your usage of derogatory words such as "'mindless, centric, damn'" is far different from citing the nationality of the editors. You could cite the nationality, but do not name-call it with "mindless, centric, damn". It also a clear violation of the Misplaced Pages:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. Be guided by wikipedia editing guidelines, more so by journalism ethics. Thank You. --FTSantos ©Bot 09:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This guy keeps harassing me on my talk page (, ), and it's getting really annoying because my email inbox is full of notifications from this guy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan17 replies:

• Notice: The User:Benlisquare (above ^) who is using an image/illegible non-latin signature is only making excuses that he is the one being harassed, when he is the one who clearly used derogatory words and "name calling" editors in the Edit Summary/History page of the South China Sea article. His image/illegible signature is also a clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Signatures policy. FTSantos ©Bot 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy, and throwing that sort of non sequitur argument against another editor in a content dispute shows a level of desperation on your part. His signature is completely unrelated to the matter at hand; you're just looking for mud to sling. Calm down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Fabyan, who is complaining about Benlisquare's sig, has failed to sign several recent posts at all, and has been asked on his talk page to ensure that his sig contained a link to his user page. Having read WP:SIG myself just now, I am not convinced that Benlisquare's sig violates it; in any case, I find it hard to maintain good faith with regard to Fabyan's repeated reference to 'images', when it is obvious that Benlisquare's sig contains no image files. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that while Fabyan accuses others of using "derogatory words" against him, he himself uses edit summaries that comment on the nationalities of others - racist, as far as I'm concerned. He's been warned about it (by myself); the warning was removed. GiantSnowman 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides, even WP:SIG doesn't mandate a Latin character signature:

As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames are encouraged to sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters.

(emphasis added)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan, in case you're wondering, this is what my email inbox looks like right now. If edits like this one aren't harassment, I don't know what is. I mean, the first email I got as a result of this little dispute was at 4:29PM (UTC+10), and at 9:02PM, which is five hours later, I am still getting emails thanks to you. Please understand that playing with my patience isn't nice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to block Fabyan17 for 24 hours for edit warring and accusing people of vandalism; the only one I can think of is that it stopped 6 hours ago. Fabyan17, you need to slow down and discuss things, and if you revert again I or another admin almost certainly will block you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This issue came up last week, and just today scrolled off the board. Unfortunately, i must bring it up again. Under contention were two issues:

• whether the concept of "Lake Michigan-Huron" (the system of the two lakes when considered together hydrologically) should have its own article or be a section of the Great Lakes article; and

• whether "Lake Michigan-Huron" was a "lake" as normally defined, for purposes of inclusion in lists of lakes, replacing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and how should it be described in the article (or section)

After a very confused beginning where discussion were located at multiple places, the content discussion settled down to Talk: Lake Michigan-Huron, including a merge discussion, and another merge discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. The discussion on the Lake M-H talk page was actually making good progress, with most editors agreeing that Lake M-H as a construct which was useful for purposes of hydrology, but was not a "lake" per se. There were still some differences of viewpoint about relative weight of these different aspects, but things were moving forward.

However, in the past few hours, Kwamikagami has made multiple edits to Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron which have the effect of pushing the two-lake concept, which he was pushing quite vehemently before, at the expense of the two lakes each being considered individually as a lake. These edits were not only premature, they go totally against the emerging consensus, and as such I have reverted them.

This complaint is not about the content dispute, which can be settled on the article's talk page, but about the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus which he will not recognize. His behavior from the beginning of this affair has been disruptive throughout, disrespectful of Misplaced Pages's process, disdainful of other editors, and, perhaps worst of all, intellectual dishonest -- he writes, for instance, that he is going to restore "the earlier consensus lead" to the article, when he fact what he does is to replace the current consensus lead with his earlier one in which his POV was prominent. I believe Kwamikagami's behavior deserves some kind of sanction, and it would seem most appropriate to be a topic ban from the entire area of Lake Michigan-Huron and related topics. Since it's not really his usual area of concentration anyway, this is a minimal sanction which will not greatly effect him, but will allow the process to continue without his disruptive interference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is a content dispute, but since I got blocked when Ken made spurious charges a few days ago (for which I got an apology from the admin who didn't fact check), I figure I'd better explain myself here.

I reverted Ken's POV to the consensus lead at Lake Michigan–Huron, which everyone but him had accepted, and restored a source; I then added in suggested wording by two other editors on the talk page. I copy-edited the rather choppy summary at Great Lakes to follow, and I reverted Ken's deletions from the long-standing consensus at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

No-one is arguing that Lake MH should "replace Lake Michigan and Lake Huron". What we are arguing is that the scientific treatment of Michigan and Huron as one body of water should be given its due. There are all manner of suggestions on how to accomplish that without trampling on the usual conception of them as two lakes; the emerging consensus is coming along just fine without Ken forcing his POV on it, especially now that we have editors from the geo wikiprojects contributing.

Ken's idea of BOLD is that he makes a change, someone reverts, and he changes it back where he wants it; last time he did that over an obviously contested deletion, and it took an admin to restore the article. But if another editor does that he gets upset that they're violating BOLD: This just happened with another editor at the merge discussion. The edits I made today were the suggestions of other editors; Ken needs to learn that his opinion is not "consensus", no matter how strongly he believes it. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen from my statement above, I'm perfectly happy for whatever is left of the content dispute -- in truth, there's really no one except Kwamikagami anymore who opposes the view that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a system of interest only for hydrological purposes -- to play out on the talk page. As I said, it's making good progress. My complaint is totally about the behavior of Kwamikagami in trying to force his own point of view on the articles through deceit and distraction.

The remainder of the discussion here shoudl focus on Kamikagami's behavior, because AN/I is not the place to thrash out content disputes, but it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I go off to sleep, I'll make a suggestion: topic ban both Kwamikagami and me from Lake Michigan-Huron. I'll be more than happy to have the monkey off my back, this whole incident has been a royal pain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: I just took four days off, so you made your edits without us fighting. Why don't you try taking four days off, and see what kind of consensus emerges with my edits without us fighting? I can easily work with Jason, Alan, Dan, Pfly, RockMagnetist, and the rest who are making reasoned arguments for balancing the POVs involved. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on in 7 places, including my report here on Kwamikagami about a week ago. Long story short, since then Kwamikagami has gone even further off the rails. I don't have the hours it would take to summarize. A few quick decoder notes:

• A combine vs. merge discussion (which I'm neutral on) was a tangent/ distraction.
• Kwamikagami's talk page no longer shows actual discussions. In my case they deleted the points I made and said I can no longer post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say". They also rewrote their comment which I was responding to (just rewrote, not using strike marks) to make it look like something else.

This is Kwamikagami ramming their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Started with warring to remove tags, and a clear 3RR violation which was overlooked. Now certainly disruptive editing, wp:civil violations, (now throwing extreme bogus insults against me) and longer term edit warring (while more recently avoiding 3RR violations) for a start. PLEASE do something! North8000 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor - Yesterday and today, I looked over the substance of the dispute, and the ways in which the various involved editors have conducted themselves. It seems obvious to me that kwamikagami is pushing a fringe POV, and actively forum-shopping and otherwise gaming the rules in order to do so. Their attempt to drum up support on the Geology and Geography WikiProjects is especially glaring. I'd advise North8000 to relax a little; no-one is going to die if this dispute drags on a day or two longer. However, my own feeling is that (at the very least) kwami should receive a perpetual and wide-ranging topic ban, as they seem incapable of accepting the wider world's consensus that there are five Great Lakes. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) BTW, on the forum shopping, Kwamikagami didn't just shop in those places, they started the same discussion over in those locations.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant by forum-shopping: shopping around to find a forum in which the poster's view may be supported. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I notified the Wikiprojects that could be expected to be interested, and at the same time: It was simple notification because we needed more input. When there is a protracted dispute on a geography or geology topic, those projects should know about it; their knowledge may be able to resolve the problem. North8000 below is worried that we don't have enough eyes, and you criticize me for trying to get more? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From my end the caps on "PLEASE" and the exclamation point relate more to desperation than urgency. But one note on the "urgency" topic, above it looks like Beyond My Ken is at the end of their rope. They have been perhaps the main person who has understood and did the work of fixing the mis-use of sources, and the needed changes in wording to conform with the sources. I also have some concern about the article losing it's "more eyes" and related participation due to desperation and being "ground down" by Kwamikagami's relentless tactics. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban on the involved articles Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan–Huron, List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. The Great Lakes article is potentially also involved but I think has so many eyes on it that it can be kept from harm's way with less pain and suffering. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate decision of an admin to lift Kwami's most recent edit-warring block has emboldened Kwami to the point where he figures he can win his little edit war, whose purpose is to abuse wikipedia by promoting the non-existent "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was lifted because its rational was faulty: it was based on false allegations by Ken that the blocking admin didn't verify. The fact that Bugs would say that the lake is "non-existent", when we have multiple RS's for it, many gathered by uninvolved editors, and the consensus on the talk page is that it does exist, is astounding. What happened to the Bugs who could always be counted on to say something insightful at the ref desk? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kwami, who did you get an apology from? It certainly wasn't me. I didn't object to RegentsPark unblocking, but that was because he seemed to have secured an agreement that you would not repeat the disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, whose accusations you linked to as the rational for your block. He had repeated Ken's accusations without verifying them. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fairy snuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further comment - The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that Lake Michigan-Huron is a POV fork of material that belongs primarily in Great lakes, and that attempts to assemble evidence to the contrary are an original synthesis in support of a fringe position. (Apologies for linking three policy articles in one sentence.) That is a content problem, and probably needs external scrutiny through RfC. Kwami's behaviour in defence of that position, though, is unambiguously disruptive, and I feel that timely administrative intervention would be a good thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a merge discussion, which has been unanimous in voting to keep the article, because it is clearly not fringe or a POV fork, but reflects the scientific view of the lakes. The only question is whether there is enough potential for development to warrant a separate article: if it were merged, the material would be placed in the Great Lakes article, and so the 'fringe' issue would be the same; without a merge, the section in the Great Lakes article is reduced to a summary with a main-article link, and so is not a fork, POV or otherwise.

Disruptive? What of the editors edit-warring over deleting an article when there are multiple objections to deletion, and which one editor characterized as a giant 'fuck you'? What of violating BOLD while quoting it, and of deleting summary material that has been stable at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan for years? Why is it that edit warring to impose a new POV is not disruptive, but that demanding we achieve consensus before changing what had been a stable article is disruptive?

If you'll look at the changes that spurred Ken's complaint today, you'll see that they are (1) reverting to a consensus established on the talk page (one which I did not write), (2) modifying that consensus with concerns expressed by other editors, and (3) reverting BOLD changes he made to stable articles. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Regentspark to notify him of this thread. FWIW I think that reducing the block to time served was incredibly lenient and that this display of good faith has, as BMK intimates, backfired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee alleges that I have abused my admin powers

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

Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges here that I have abused my admin powers by implementing a series of WP:CFD/S nominations.

Please can an uninvolved admin review my actions?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As stated on WP:CFDS at the very top in bold "They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.", the IP did not tag any of the categories with the tag, therefore no one knew of of the CFDS, therefore the move is not vaild. I do sincerely apologise to you for my inexcusable outburst, I shouldn't have taken out my frustation on BrownHairedGirl. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that, in general, if a reasonable, good-faith objection against a speedy process is raised after the fact, in a matter where there are no obvious issues of policy violation at stake, it is often a good idea for an admin to just do a courtesy revert to allow discussion, a bit like an article WP:REFUND. In this case, however, I don't really see that Bidgee has raised any concrete argument why he thinks the new titles are bad (other than procedurally), so what's the case? Also, people, if you could take a step back from the issue for a minute and reflect: you are aware that these are category titles of template boxes, right? No normal reader is ever going to see them. I can understand why people might be concerned about the titling of article categories (they are displayed to readers), but template pages are not really part of the reader-directed interface at all, so why does it matter? (That said, personally I'd have a slight preference for the nominal, non-adjectival style too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for raising objections to the move, which I will do if and when the move gets nominated properly. This discussion is about the procedural issue and failing to revert encourages the gaming of the system. - Nick Thorne 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, thank you for that clarification, and sorry that I did not spot the lack of tagging.

It would saved a lot of time and effort if you had simply noted that procedural oversight, rather than indulging in a series of unfounded personal attacks, and repeatedly reverting my edits to my own talk page.

However, now that you have shown that there was a procedural flaw, I will try to remedy it.

What I will do is to make a procedural listing of the relevant categories at WP:CFD, with a note that since these relate to the desired reversal of a procedurally flawed move, that the status quo ante should be restored unless there is a consensus to rename. Per the speedies. This is less disruptive than moving the categories back again, and possibly having the flawed move done again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, they should be reverted back to the stable version since the move is not vaild and having them remain is totally against the WP:CFDS. Also I wasn't "repeatedly reverting my (BHG) edits to my (BGH) own talk page", since I only reverted once on your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, unless there is a consensus to rename, they will be reverted.

Since they will be listed at CFD, the rename may be upheld. In that case, no change will need to be made ... but if the speedies are reverted first, we will have two extra sets of moves. That is pointless.

I did not accuse you of reverting your talk page; I accused you of reverting mine. Sorry that my comment about two reverts was slightly wrong. I checked again, and what actually happened was that you posted after I had closed the discussion, and when I reverted your comment you reverted me with an allegation of admin abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted when? It isn't pointless to restore the stable version, whether or not there is a consenus to move at a later time.

I'm responding to your allegation of "repeatedly reverting" your talk page which is not correct. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but the proposed procedure here unreasonable advantages the person who nominated the cats without following the rules - the epitome of gaming the system. It may be inconvenient, it may be a pain in the proverbial, but unless we are going to reward those who do not follow the correct procedure, the move should be reversed, and either listed in the normal non-speedy way, or the speedy listing should be closed procedurally for not meeting the requirements. - Nick Thorne 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, unless you have evidence of a deliberate attempt to game the system, you should assume that the failure to tag the categories was a procedural error made in good faith. Bidgee has backed off all hir ABFing, and it would help if you would do likewise.

The proposed procedure does not give any advantage to the person who speedy-nominated categories. Unless there is a consensus to rename as proposed at speedy, the moves will be reverted. As noted above, that means that the status quo ante will be restored if there is no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not intend to suggest that anyone was actually trying to game the system in this case, but I do maintain that failing to insist on correct procedures in cases like this lends encouragement to those who might seek to do so. - Nick Thorne 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I quite agree that the procedures are important. They exist for a reason.

When they have failed, as in this case, the important thing is to ensure that those purposes of the processes are fulfilled, rather than that every step is replicated.

If the categories had been correctly tagged, then let's assume that an interested editor would have spotted them and objected. The proposal would then have gone to a full CFD discussion, with a default to the status quo ante. That's exactly what my remedy will produce. The only difference is that the categories will not be at the old position while the discussion is underway.

If these pages were articles, I would of course have move them back as soon as I became aware of the procedural flaw. However, category moves involve so many edits that back-and-forth movement is disruptive, which is why I propose to leave then in place pending the closure of the substantive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Full discussion opened

Please note that these categories are now listed for a full discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 17#Television_navigational_boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User: BENLISQUARE is using Image and Non-english Character Signature, which is Prohibited in Misplaced Pages English version

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

The User:Benlisquare is using a Signature image or a Non-English Characters in the Misplaced Pages English Version which is incomprehensible to the editors of the Wiki English Version. Based on the Misplaced Pages:Signatures Policy, the usage of an Image and generally incomprehensible Characters in signatures is Prohibited. The English version of Misplaced Pages is understood to use English characters as the medium for the editors. Signatures with images and non-english characters are definitely prohibited & violation of Misplaced Pages:Signatures policies.

The user has been using it for a long time and appropriate changes have not yet been made. FTSantos ©Bot 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

1. "UN Human Rights Council passes resolution on Sri Lanka", World Socialist Web Site, 28 March 2012.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards