Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 22 January 2013

• 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?

Request to block MMAbot

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MMABot#MMABot_v3.0_Task_Proposals_and_Notes. If you look through the talk pages of the project, you can see that the MMAproject has serious disagreements on formats and guidelines. At this point there hasn't been compromise or agreement reached by the entire group as how proceed. One of the editors, TreyGeek has has history of trying to impliment his viewpoints by falsely linking guidelines that don't apply, threatening to get editors blocked that refuse to agree to his point of view, and he has even went as far as trying to get admin to step in and make people do things his way. Now he is attempting to circumvent the viewpoints of the entire group by programming a bot to change the articles to match his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history. If you look at the talk page for the bot, I have tried to voice my opinion and he keeps deleting it and saying its his talk page. Well if its his talk page and he is refusing to accept input from anybody who doesn't share an opinion, then it innappropriate for him to be using a bot to change formats to match what he wants. The bot is serving his interests and not the interests of the group, and I respectfully request help from somebody who had the authority to temporary block use of the bot until the group can come to a compromise that is satisfactory to all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is unhappy with the consensus that formed at WT:MMA#Cleaning up the format. TreyGeek posted a notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page about creating a new task for MMAbot regarding table formatting. Trey is simply asking for input from the WikiProject about the task, and so far Ravensfire and I have asked questions about it. Willdawg is attempting to stonewall the discussion, claiming that a compromise is what matters, rather than consensus. Users PoisonWhiskey and SubSeven have asked him why he has a problem with it. He opposes "somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it". I don't think Willdawg understands that this bot task being discussed is still in it's infancy, and is nowhere close to going live yet. Ishdarian 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read consensus, CONSENSUS IS COMPROMISE. You can't seperate the two. You are also wrong about me having an issue with the Conensus. The Conensus was to go to the blue tables, and I have not expressed any issue with what was agreed upon. The admin who closed it out specifically said that the consensus didn't indclude minor changes. I have an issue with the table being too fluffed up and hard to follow, which is why I am suggesting a couple minor changes to make things look better. I am looking for a little diplomacy, I don't object to the major layout, and in exchange, they agree to a couple small, minor edits that would make the table easier to read. This is the problem with the group. There are a few editors who keep refusing to accept opinions and viewpoints that are different than their own and they have to get their way. I'm willing to compromise and drop the issue if they are willing to compromise on a couple really minor edits (The way the columns end up spacing out, the judges scores make the table look better if they are put into the comment section, and 95% of fights that end in KO or TKO end because of strikes, so its redundant and fluffing to add anything behind the TKO unless its something like a physician stoppage or something out of the ordinary). You be the judge. Am I really asking for them to compromise that much? I'm willing to give in to the majority of what they want in a format but they can't budge just a little bit on a couple minor issues. Really? What they are doing isn't consistant with a CONSENSUS. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues? may i remind you why the discussions about the format began? (tip: Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven and , , , , , , , , ) Poison Whiskey 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are new in this drama, just take a look at the section "Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus" above. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know that section is going to show exactly what I'm saying, that there are a couple editors who are trying to use admin to circumvent the COMPROMISE portion of CONSENSUS and have tried everything including trying to get admin to tell me and other editors that we have to bow down to their viewpoint and to stop requesting that the project be a group effort. Take a look, it appears you have a case of the IDIDNTHEARTHAT that you like to point out. Weren't you told that I was following the rules and there wasn't any action to be taken in that complaint. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from someone involved. The discussion Willdawg is referring to is for a proposed task for MMABot, reformatting result tables in MMA events (where possible) to use the consensus format. The bot does not do this right now and probably won't for at least a week, probably several weeks. There's a discussion on the WT:MMA page about the proposed change where he's already posted. Leaving essentially the same comment on the MMABot talk page doesn't help and could fragment the discussion. I think he's mistaken in his comments and aggressively pushing back on attempts to use the new event result layout. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I want is for everybody's opinion to be taken into consideration and for everybody to compromise on issues. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a couple editors are trying to force the rest of us down, then yes, I will push back, but the difference is I am only pushing back to the point where all the editors are equal and can have their viewpoints treated equally. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Right. It really is time to start enforcing the discretionary sanctions here. If no uninvolved admin objects, I'll be topic-banning Willdawg111 for a couple of months, shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crazy idea, since I'm one of the people with a headache from interacting with WillDawg. They're a relatively new editor that does some good work but I don't think they've got a good understanding of policy and their interaction style is causing problems. Rather than a total topic ban, perhaps a restriction for MMA related areas to edit only articles and article talk pages but may not change any existing format in the article nor revert format changes that others make, maybe for a month or two. After that, restrictions are lifted but they're on an interaction probation to force them to be more congenial in how they interact with others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a chance of him becoming a solid editor but a topic ban would probably chase him away or, when it's over, result in a backlash where he gets blocked. A wake-up call might work here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a revert restriction is going to work. As evidenced at the MMA wikiproject talk page WT:MMA, other editors have observed that Willdawg111's behavior is not only restricted to article space format changes. Personal attacks have been called out, snide remarks are ignored, and objection to any sort of forward movement (because a Bot is operated by someone on the other side of the MMA debate) indicates that they are engaging in a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and therefore their actions (including this thread) show that it may be wise to cut our losses with this editor. Hasteur (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping that there's a good editor in there that's fallen in line with some of the ugliness that's in MMA. With the right shock (from some admin he doesn't know and who's never stepped foot in the MMA area), it might be enough. Right now the pain is from his behavior on WT:MMA and refusal to accept the formatting consensus. Okay, end his ability to do that while still letting him work on MMA articles. If that fails, he gets the hammer. Ravensfire (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for sanctions to be applied now, but I'd like to note that Willdawg111 has not yet had the MMA riot act read over them. They've been "suggested" at a couple of times, but no official delivery of warning yet. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, more MMA drama? It's time to put a stop to this. It's bad enough they've driven Mtking away. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great news! Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disgusting. RNealK (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban This situation is really annoying. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Okay, I've topic-banned Willdawg for three months. I don't think the lack of a more formal warning should be really an issue here, because throughout this whole thread and the preceding one, discretionary sanctions had been mentioned multiple times, as had the idea that Willdawg had deserved a block already for his behaviour a couple of days ago; it must have been clear to every participant in this discussion that such sanctions were on the table. I have also blocked Evenfiel for 48 hours for the nasty personal attack just above here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dang. That seems a little harsh. I could see a month, but 3? Sure, I haven't been following most of this. But in the interactions I have been involved with that feature Wilddawg I don't recall him making snide or less than subtle insults. He just seemed like a genuinely good intentioned editor who was being stymied (along with myself) by an incredibly small group of people. A vocal minority if you will. The ANI is the last stop when people are unable to see (in our view) reason. Or at least be open to consensus, which wilddawg pointed out was not being followed because these folks would not allow for any compromise to be made. This is all compounded by the fact that mma is a relatively small topic, and the ones who are here but not participating have probably been driven off by the same person who outed me. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wilddawg's frank admission that he will not accept a consensus that does not incorporate a "compromise" towards his viewpoint is evidence enough, even in isolation, that his continued involvement is disruptive. Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has already been banned. No need to grave dance. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if that's the way it came across; I had no intention of "grave dancing". I was simply indicating to FPaS that I supported his actions (it is not uncommon for admins to comment on each other's actions at ANI). Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this too, reluctantly, since I think that Willdawg has good intentions but a lack of knowledge, or a lack of interest in knowledge, about how Misplaced Pages should work. Besides, I urge Portland to stop making these claims of conspiracy theories. I suppose Portland is making reference to JohnnyBones or whatever the hell is name was, with the suggestion that the editors who are commenting on this and other threads are somehow swayed by that now-blocked editor and the ones who aren't are driven away by Johnny. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Moreover, both Willdawg and Portland repeatedly accuse "the rest" of the editors of unwillingness to compromise; I see no evidence of that either, and it is time to put a stop to the "consensus=compromise" fallacy. Consensus does not necessarily entail compromise. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  In response to you claim about "no evidence", this is because I don't like to spend my free time digging around for an "AHA!" quote. Even if I did, you would just repeat what you already said. In response to your last sentence: But it could, and it's a shame that they won't because If I had the nerve to resort to sockpuppetry there wouldn't be a need for compromise. Maybe that is where this JBJ character comes from in the first place. Either way, the mma project is just that, a project in the same vein as those in Chicago.

edit: This is also not about me, as I did not participate in the majority of these issues such as formatting( I think I said I liked elements of both and left it at that), nor did I follow the mmabot conversation. But in the arguments I have had with the others regarding The Ultimate Fighter, and the whole tier system all there appears to be blocking me is a massive stonewall. This is how teenagers compromise. I also liken mmaprojects version of consensus to "America; love it or leave it!" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP should be blocked and harassment has not, should not and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And (s)he's back to it again! GotR 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected List of cities in China. Vandalism on Makecat's talk page has died down; if it flares up again that talk page should be semi-protected as well. There isn't much else we can do, I think, but an IP-range specialist can maybe figure something out. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100 adding unsourced material / original research

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

Back in December, Earth100 was brought to AN/I by myself for disruptive editing, consisting mainly of original research and adding unsourced material (). At the end of December, he was blocked for personal attacks (), and after that, his edits became very productive again. Unfortunately, tonight he has started again adding unreferenced material (, this one I showed my edit, where I put in a citation needed tag, as it makes it more clear what was unreferenced). I have tried explaining to him again why this is not allowed (), but he has responded by saying that apparently, while he has a source for the information (that he did not add to the article when he added the information), he is engaging in original research, which he continues to deny. It's just getting a little bit ridiculous how many times people in the project have to tell him that he cannot simply engage in editing like this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks just being too aggressive on me, on just wants to make a report on me, and there's no significant problem with me. Just ignore the message, Thank You.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100, that isn't a response to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem--you aren't even acknowledging that you're doing anything wrong. Multiple users have tried multiple times to explain why you cannot add unsourced material or original research, but you continue to do it anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, I proposed one of his articles for deletion 2013 North Pacific Super Storm, as it failed WP:GNG, and we've already had an increase in desire to make articles for non-noteworthy winter storms since The Weather Channel started naming them (but that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this), and he removed the PROD tag (which is fine), with the edit summary, "Only STUPID users like INKS don't find any thing likes news and true information." He then apparently changed his mind and re-added the prod tag back, but this is not his first time making personal attacks. This has to stop; I have tried to be helpful and explain what needs to be done to properly source things, but Earth100 has refused to take my advice and has only resulted in being hostile. I didn't bother putting a warning on his talk page for the attack, as he already knows personal attacks are not allowed (as that was the reason for his last block), and it will probably just end with him deleting the warning anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because an editor repeats problematic behavior and deletes warnings from their talk page doesn't mean you should stop posting the warnings. They serve a purpose and they make a record. My impression, although I know little about the subject matter that interests Earth100, is that he does some good things and some bad things. Calling you stupid, of course, is one of the bad things, but even you acknowledge that he can make productive edits. The issue is how to get him to reduce the bad stuff. He apparently has strong views on things and some of them are at best counterproductive. For example, he created a userbox (I think he means "skunk") in which he announced his hatred for the Communist Party of China. It's not as bad as the userbox he created in which, if my memory serves me, he said he hated the Japanese - that one I deleted and I'll probably delete this one, too - but it's obviously not a productive use of Misplaced Pages's resources (and it violates userbox guidelines). The last block really got his attention. Not only did he improve after the block expired, but during the block he became quite communicative and friendly. And none of what I'm saying addresses the issue of adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to articles (he was warned about that before, particularly by User:Qwyrxian). So, what do you suggest? Another block? Perhaps a mentor? I'm tempted to block him now, mainly because he's not really responding to any of this in any meaningful way, and his behavior is mostly a repeat of previous behavior, but I'll wait for some more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the warning for a personal attack. As for what I think should be done, forced mentorship would probably work, if Earth100 is willing to go along with it. But first he has to acknowledge that he's doing something that warrants it, otherwise we'll just be back here when the mentorship ends. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship, of course, would have to be voluntary and, obviously, he would have to acknowledge it is needed; otherwise, it's meaningless. As an aside, your warning is incorrect in that it says the uncivil comment was "removed". More important, he's not responding here or on his talk page, even though he's edited since I urged him to do so. I know next to nothing about the subject matter, but it seems that his edits to Kármán vortex street are at least partly WP:OR in that he appears to be interpreting the pictures he added without any secondary sources in support of his interpretations.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I worded myself improperly when I said "forced mentorship". I meant he is given the choice between mentorship or a block, with the instructions that if he stops his mentorship, he would be blocked (that's something I thought I've seen before - if I'm incorrect, please let me know.) My apologies on the incorrect template. Is there a proper template to use for personal attacks in edit summaries? (Although, he's requested deletion on the page, so I tagged it with G7, so it won't be up very long and it has been deleted.) As for the Kármán vortex street, there shouldn't be a gallery at all, as it clearly goes against the policy of WP:IG, which I pointed out on the talk page (full quote here, as it's not really relevant to put the whole thing on this AN/I) Inks.LWC (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a personal attack template for edit summaries. One option is not to use a template that doesn't really work. Another option is use the template but then edit the expanded text to conform to reality.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK; I'll keep that in mind for the future. Regarding the mentorship, is my proposal permissible under the policies and guidelines? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are not intended to be punitive. Therefore, if there's acknowledgment by the editor of the problem(s), a promise to contribute appropriately, and an agreement to be mentored to assist the editor in adhering to their promise, that could be an acceptable solution. Obviously, an editor's promise loses some credibility if they've promised before but return to the problematic conduct. Here a mentor hasn't been tried, so it would be a new component.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, and I think/hope this can be resolved without a block. Although, from the past AN/Is, Earth100 typically has not participated in the AN/I until being told again that he should participate. Perhaps you could encourage him to come here and participate (as I think it would be much better coming from an admin, rather than myself). Inks.LWC (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I already told him. I wasn't happy that subsequent to that he edited articles but failed to respond. Still, I'm willing to give him a bit more time, but if he continues to edit as if nothing has happened, he'll leave me little choice but to block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Earth100 for 2 weeks. His "response" was to delete all the comments and warnings from his talk page, including my request to respond to the claims against him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that he responded on InksLWCs talkpage denying that he had been involved in any personal attacks.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So what happens when he gets back? The block doesn't really address the issues at the heart of this (or the last) AN/I. Each time, he's been blocked for personal attacks. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • At this point, we'd wait for the block to run its course. If he comes back and starts editing productively, great! If not, he can be blocked for a longer time (or indef) as necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN/WP:HARASSMENT, and childish name-calling by User:JoshuSasori

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

For about a month now User:JoshuSasori has been making it very difficult for me to make any edits to articles on Japanese cinema. Virtually all of my edits to Kuroneko, Tadao Sato, Double Suicide of Sonezaki and numerous other articles have been subjected to excessive scrutiny, and if not blankly reverted have been gradually whitewashed out. He has been generally unwilling to compromise on issues where we disagree, and when I don't let him have the articles exactly his way he starts calling me names like "hound", "orientalist", "troll" and "insane loon". (Those are just the ones that he wrote in his edit summaries and the most recent one. There are plenty more on the various talk pages.)

I would very much appreciate some administrative oversight, preferably someone giving the user in question a good talking to and explaining to him that he doesn't "own" articles he has created or contributed to on Misplaced Pages, and he shouldn't treat he should call talk page comments by his fellow Wikipedians "troll droppings".

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:JoshuSasori does indeed seem to be consistent in his personal attacks. I especially enjoy his dodging attitude at WP:DRN. He is pulling a classic WP:NOTTHEM behavior. Comments like "I strongly advise you to look through Elvenscout742's edit history." and "I'd like to emphasize here that I warned the person trying to resolve this conflict to carefully read Elvenscout742's edit history before attempting a resolution." display a pattern of blaming others for their incivility. Not once does JoshuSasori offer a single diff, instead expecting the DRN volunteer to comb through the OP's edits and determine what's wrong.--v/r - TP 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to deal with it? elvenscout742 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

On the dispute resolution page, we are asked not to discuss user conduct. Thus lengthy descriptions of Elvenscout742's behaviour would not be appropriate: "It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." JoshuSasori (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour". Whether he provided detailed examples is really beside the point, because he focused on ad hominem attacks against my supposedly harassing behaviour. Note, though, that I never called JoshuSasori a hound, or a troll, or an insane loon, or referred to his talk page comments as fecal matter. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour - This quite simply is not true, I didn't say a word about your behaviour. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm - what difference would Elvenscout's behavior make? Diffs presented show pretty clearly JoshuSasori's incivil behavior bordering on personal attacks. NE Ent 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 has been following me for the last month. Do you want details? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we want. Please show us.--v/r - TP 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori above claims I have been following him. In reality, I have been simply trying to edit Misplaced Pages articles on Japanese films that I am interested in. Some of them, I already edited before JoshuSasori even registered on Misplaced Pages, which I pointed out in my peace offering to him on December 24. He is the one who has been following me around these articles. Most of my recent edits to articles on Japanese cinema (too many to list) have been either reverted or followed closely by JoshuSasori. He has also showed up at several unrelated discussions (1, 2, 3) I was involved in and opposed my point of view, apparently just because. One of his recent comments also resembles a professional threat. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 initially interacted with me via the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Japan talk page where I initiated a discussion about macron usage in MOS:JAPAN. He then followed me to the talk page of Ryo Kase. After that, he began a campaign of multiple article moves of fairly obscure articles which I had created: Reiko, Ryoko Nakano, Sonezaki Shinju, Kindai Eiga Kyokai. I have been watching virtually all Japanese cinema articles for eight months, and he had not edited any prior to these moves, I had never seen him before that. Following this, and further disputes about WP:HOUNDING, he started "editing" these articles with minor edits, often WP:OR. When asked to provide a citation or corrected in a minor way, he immediately posts long screeds on the talk page of the articles. I do not know of any substantial edits by this user on any cinema articles, instead he makes gigantic contributions to talk pages only. However, I can understand the above about his work may have caused him distress. I have no intention of professionally threatening this person and will remove those remarks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for calling him "an insane loon". If someone called me an insane loon, certainly I would think it was a humorous joke, but perhaps he did not take it that way. The context of this remark was that he told me that I had not seen a film called "The Hidden Fortress". Since I have seen the film, and since Elvenscout742 does not know anything about me or what films I might have seen or not seen, his comment struck me as being extremely odd, as if he had some kind of paranormal knowledge about me, which is why I made that crack about him. Frankly I don't think "orientalist" is very insulting but I apologize for that too. Also I called him a "hound dog", in the style of Elvis Presley. So I will apologize, once again. I've recently been looking through the edit history and noticed that when I told Elvenscout742 that he was being ridiculous or being absurd he took that as a personal attack. What I'll do from now on is to try to avoid this kind of talk with him. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I happened accidentally upon a move request JoshuSasori had participated in on 15 December and he responded to me 20 minutes later. The WikiProject Japan discussion to which he is referring does indeed seem to have been going on between him and my WikiProject Japan colleagues at that time, but my involvement in it began on 21 December, almost a week later. After this, I did indeed notice that he had created several articles based on his POV that Japanese names on Misplaced Pages should not have macrons: a number of these had no real justifications (Kindai Eiga Kyokai, for instance, was based on unrelated third party DVD covers, even though their official website uses "Kyoukai" to mark the long vowel). I was not "hounding" JoshuSasori by moving these pages, I was merely doing what I believe is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. JoshuSasori's apparently taking personal offense at my moving articles he "created", and immediately moving to undo all of these edits, indicates a lack of understanding of what Misplaced Pages collaboration is all about. It is completely false to claim that I had never edited any articles on Japanese cinema prior to moving "his" pages: I pointed out to him early on several specific examples of articles I had edited years before he arrived on them, and several more articles (mostly the animated films of Studio Ghibli) have been edited by me and never touched by him. He seems to continue to believe that my interest in Japanese cinema is a fabrication that I use to undermine his edits, despite this overwhelming evidence. His above accusation of OR is entirely disingenuous: I made a minor note on the Japanese title of Kuroneko, and provided numerous sources. He also reverted my addition of a Wikilink to the article on a historical person who is mentioned in the film, based on a ridiculous assertion that the Minamoto no Raikō who appeared in the film is different from the Minamoto no Raikō of Japanese legend, despite the character's dialogue specifically alluding to said legends in the first person. It is difficult for me to make "substantial edits" to cinema articles when he has been working to undermine most of my edits, however minor. However, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that I was the one who started the articles Twenty-Four Eyes and Ukare Gitsune Senbon Zakura. (I will assume by "cinema" above he means "Japanese cinema" -- Musa (film) and Bichunmoo are just two other articles I started.)

I would like to acknowledge my appreciation for JoshuSasori's removal of the above-mentioned comment and retraction of "insane loon". It was difficult to take the latter as a joke, given the other names. Honestly, though, "orientalist" is far more offensive to me personally, because I majored in Japanese translation in university, I have written critiques of orientalism in general. One of my only four edits in 2010 was to alter a slightly POV statement that had previously been biased in favour of the orientalist Arthur Waley. (I am not proud of my pre-revival failure to understand Misplaced Pages's sourcing rules, but my edit summary provided justification.) "Orientalist", to me and to other scholars, implies a lack of serious acquaintance with the so-called "cultures of the east", and a Poundish dismissal of scholarly research into these areas. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, my above response sounds kind of confrontational. I of course did not mean it that way. If I can take JoshuSasori's above inaccurate representation of history (paragraph 1) as merely the good-faith misunderstanding I initially took it to be, and his apology for the name-calling (paragraph 2) as an indication that from now on we can work on collaborating on Japanese cinema articles peaceably, I will go back to my initial state of offering peace. JoshuSasori, are we on the same page here? I am willing to believe that JoshuSasori's move of Double Suicide of Sonezaki to an unofficial/inaccurate title was just good-faith ribbing if he accepts that my interest in Japanese cinema is genuine and that I am only WP:HERE to help build Misplaced Pages. (And that my DVD collection is bigger than his is!フフフ) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found a funny precedent for my being bold in moving articles relating to Japanese cinema. And I think I was probably right, since the move request that later reverted this move neglected whether the film was the primary topic or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Elvenscout742. The above is a mere sample of what I have been putting up with, every day, for the last month since he started hounding me. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what?? I just gave you yet another peace offering, despite your continued false assertions that I am the one who is doing the "hounding". elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm missing your point JoshuSasori. You're upset because he used actual diffs to illustrate his point? Please, offer something better than "just look". This thread is about to close with your indef block for the below veiled threat. So I suggest you offer an explanation quick and change your behavior.--v/r - TP 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note that while this has been going on JoshuSasori has considered making irrelevant, sarcastic arguments against me and referencing my ANI posts on another move request debate where he doesn't have a real argument. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Intimidation attempt

So why hasn't User:JoshuSasori had his ass indefinitely blocked for this rather crude attempt at intimidation? --Calton | Talk 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Abusive emails (Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis)

I received three emails this morning from User:Nero1990, an account with no contributions. There is no clear place to report an incident like this, so I'm posting here to receive administrator assistance. They are all identical, and read as follows (email addresses redacted):

from: Nero1990 <XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com> via wikimedia.org
to: Siafu <XXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com>
date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22 PM
subject: GAS THE ANTI-SEMITES!
mailed-by: wikimedia.org

LONG LIVE ISRAEL! DEATH TO THE ENEMY!


--
This e-mail was sent by user "Nero1990" on the English Misplaced Pages to user "Siafu". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Email>.

As per this you should not paste an email on-wiki, not sure whether we can do it on ANI also an admin will be able to help you. --sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the email addresses, so no outing is occurring. As for not posting emails, I find this to be a strange thing to say to me, as I'm receiving weird offensive emails from someone I don't know, being delivered by wikimedia.org; the inappropriate behavior is not mine. There's no copyright violation in posting this, either. siafu (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had similar in the past - it's someone who creates accounts just to send email abuse. I expect the answer will be to block with email access removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently a lot of editors who participated in the discussion at talk:Germans andthe ANI discussion surrounding the block of User:Guitar hero on the roof received this kind of abuse yesterday. I received 20 death threats myself. They were not from the same account who sent the email to Siafu. Blocking these throw-away accounts is not really an effective solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of crap has been going on for at least a year and a half with many prior discussions, see User talk:RolandR#Hundreds of threatening messages for example. RolandR is a frequent victim. It sounds like some progress has been made in that a throttle has been implemented of 100 emails per hour but there's still no proposal to better stop the problem. There is a plan bto allow emails to be controlled by the abusefilter , but if people have other suggestions, they may want to make them in an appropriate place. (I don't think discussions at ANI are likely to achieve a solution since the prior 10 or so haven't really.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I received several this morning from User:Liandarnody. It's obviously JarlaxleArtemis again, using an extremely offensive hmamail account name. The subject line of my messages was "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, CommuNazi scum". Account now blocked. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I should clarify when I say there's still no proposal I mean there's still no proposal that seems likely to be implemented. There have been some other proposals which don't look likely to be implemented for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I recieved the same mails as quoted by the OP this morning sent by a User:Nero1990. And yes I also (briefly) participated in the discussion at Talk:Germans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a message (happens to me quite often but I just delete automatically) from the some idiot this morning, only it read 'Gas all Arabs' to judge from the heading, since I didn't open it (probably also telling me I'm euroscum). Wouldn't have mentioned it had it not been raised here.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I just deleted them and moved on. Although I can understand that the possibilites in the present system for constant email harrasment by trolls needs to be curtailed. I support the idea of removing the email function for editors with no edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the one I got in December, from User:Enemy of the Jihadis was titled "GAS THE ARABS!". I reported the abuse to hmamail and they quickly blocked the account, but that doesn't stop the creation of lots of throwaway ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I got more of these than anybody else. :-) In analogy to WP:DENY I originally decided not to mention them on-wiki, but simply notified the email address given at WP:Functionaries. It think this is the preferred reaction; if not, maybe one of the functionaries can let us know. Hans Adler 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one liked to know I wasnt the only person to receive these. Email disabled now though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that I see a good idea on ANI, but disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution qualifies. I would raise it to a minimum of 50 or 100 edits though, or maybe only autoconfirmed accounts. nableezy - 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its user:grawp and I agree with user:nableezy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that must be the first time I have seen the above comment! It is indeed a good proposal, and one I have raised before. However, I have been told that this is impractical, and reasons have been given for not introducing this. In particular, it has been argued that victims of BLP violations sometimes need to contact an editor for changes to be made. I'm not convinced that this therefore requires a facility which enables a serial abuser to send thousands of racist death threat emails to scores of editors. Nor why a user is allowed to send via Wiki mail emails from an address threatening to kill another editor. This really needs to be addressed urgently: I have received more than 1500 of these in the past 18 months. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it naive of me to suggest that the sending of so many abusive and malicious messages and death threats is a police matter? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the subject line and Wikimedia Foundation well knows: This is Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. One editor reported he received an email in my name which doubtless is from JarlaxleArtemis who has been making up offensive User names with my name in it on various Wikimedia projects. (Is this the email people are referring to here?? Feel free to send me a copy if so.) So he WILL escalate his behavior when he decides to really come and get you. If he finds out you live near him in Southern California, you might really be in trouble.

As you can see, he's been at it a long time and Wikimedia Foundation has made efforts to stop him, including contacting his family. Please add your complaints to Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis under current activites, favorite pages, or anywhere else you feel it is necessary.

Obviously if anyone bothered to go to the feds (and this is not a threat since I won't), a whole case could be opened. The stupid kid probably would face decades in prison under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Threatening the government officials of the United States, Terrorism or any of the zillions of other laws there are out there. Instead of getting the psychological help he obviously needs. But he's no Aaron Swartz so it's not like Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to protect him. CarolMooreDC 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out one of mine and send it to you, I've been meaning to do something about it since I saw your name on it. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, do I really need to mention that since these incidents are all related to editing in the Israel-Palestine area (or more recently against editors who questioned a WP:OR definition of who is German or Jewish), that this is political terrorism plain and simple? Does it matter if the person does it because they are oppressed, or because they think they are oppressed, or they are pushing some nefarious political agenda of a state? It's something Misplaced Pages has to deal with. If there is war vs. Iran it will get much worse on articles related to that topic. So it should not be just written off as hijinks of bored trolls. CarolMooreDC 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's stretching a point to call this terrorism, and I think predicting a war with Iran is not reasonable to guess at. But what Grawp is doing would certainly be illegal in UK law, and if I were in a position of influence I would recommend throwing the book at him. We're not here to provide a hosting service for bigots and promoters of hate-speech and death threats. But this is a matter for the discretion of the the Wikimedia Foundation, and so my opinion is worth approximately what you've paid for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt these actions violate any federal law but they almost certainly violate a number of state anti-harassment and anti-cyberbullying laws. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Murphy, Grawp is still around and trolling? Kurtis 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai! Grawp is on the loose again? Not good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New policy proposal?

NE Ent 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of JarlaxleArtemis violent threat .gif

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs. Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.
He has been warned about this various times, but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Misplaced Pages. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain /c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain /c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Misplaced Pages.Cúchullain /c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain /c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Misplaced Pages.Cúchullain /c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Misplaced Pages.Cúchullain /c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree: that was clearly an inappropriate statement. Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.

Peter 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I simply do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Misplaced Pages these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain /c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Misplaced Pages; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Misplaced Pages, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain /c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke". And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain /c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain /c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Misplaced Pages" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Misplaced Pages product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Misplaced Pages to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: were removed: , my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. This crazy anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and i think about solutions to decrease its effects. But changing the brain and believes of humans is not quickly possible. But again: Thanks for thinking clearly.

It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to "change the brains and believes of humans". Is that what you are trying to do? Because that would fall under the WP:ADVOCACY rubric, which you might want to review. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a longer reply to the others, latest posted in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Takes a little bit longer, is a longer reply. Tagremover (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, ok, i´ve done some research in the history of Dreamliner. Most important first:

I apologize for writing: "Too many biased ......(not repeated)" Also i used the words like a joke and meant nobody personal, it was bad. Sorry.

Wrong accusation by User:Marteau is that i : "smears the editorial pool for the article in general": that was CLEARLY never said and of course never meant.

Correct is: Too many biased edits at Dreamliner. A lot of other aircraft articles are biased, too: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner):

(moved text)

1. 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that:

Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature.

1. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected
2. User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality.
3. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better.
4. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy."
5. Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith.
6. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk.
7. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. (copied)Tagremover (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Remarks

"OK, we do the change: But later, in a few weeks/months, we revert everything and let the Dreamliner article be again the dream of all fans and Boeing." is not good. Tagremover (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting that mass of text which as the comment says is content and not really germane to the issue at hand. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about assume good faith and suggest we didnt need this thread as Tagremover has raised his issues on the talk page, but he edited the article again to add back in the two dubious tags on referenced statements, so we are getting close to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tags: I just added them a second time (according WP:3RR, update: first revert), placed my reasons on the talk page: NO ANSWER. Removed them. But discuss on talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this together with a lot of edits also of User:MilborneOne on the talk page, but NO contrary statement, as an agreement. Again: Discuss. Give (contrary?) reasons. Tagremover (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: This is IMHO and according to other users (collapsed above) not the right place to discuss article content. First the article talk page should be used. But: My reasons were ignored, and with the result or even intention to take any editor, who tries to remove biased, pro-Boeing statements and is obviously able to discuss, to ANI and get him blocked: WP:GAME.

Again: I propose you or someone else give reasons on the article talk. Discuss.

And: This case should be closed, as it is annoying for me and everybody else taken to ANI without reason or the reason to suppress any removal of bias, see also WP:OWN. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Marteau:

1. It would be nice and easier, if you post your new comments, where they could easily be found: At the end.
2. "change the brains and believes of humans" was directly related to anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war: I am not and will be not the main editor of Dreamliner and even a lot more aircrafts: As i already said, i highly respect for example User:Fnlayson for his great work. So: This are only a few statements which are obviously positive for Boeing, and if the bias (my result) should be removed permanently, editors with a some participation have to agree.
3. I am absolutely open for a discussion. IMHO this could be done on the article talk page; no dispute resolution needed now: The problem is ignorance, not reasons. But if someone thinks dispute resolution is needed and he will participate, of course.

Please, could a nice administrator close this case of WP:GAME and WP:OWN quickly: Also i think it was wrong and aggressive to accuse me here, its wasting my (and others) time as it will not satisfy me if other users get punished for accusing me. And: IMHO everything is said. Thanks in advance. Tagremover (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is violating WP:GAME to impose your anti-Boeing POV. WP:AGF does not apply here since you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Administrators, have this user permanently blocked. ANDROS_TALK 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Andros 1337: I hoped we can close this in an friendly manner, but again i am feeling personally and inappropriately attacked. WP:AGF is somehow independent of WP:POINT, which doesn´t fit here. For example: Finally, recent talks about the 787 article content were mostly good and successful. But: some borderline comments. Tagremover (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone else reading this seething pile of ... er, den of ... whatever and thinking "I see a couple of topic bans that could easily drop the drama level down a few notches"?? The level of dismissiveness by one side is startling, but the other side is just as aggressively annoying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd certainly go with that. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"dismissiveness": You are right, i have done some edits like that, and i am sorry.

It began when i proudly posted my analysis giving exact results - approved by the current events - about the recent incidents of Dreamliner at the talk page, and used some direct, bold language. English is not my motherlanguage; this probably caused additional problems. The analysis was posted with best with best intentions and to start - and somehow enforce - a discussion about the incidents and related article sections. This was unsuccessful, received some aggressive comments, reduced my tone, but it didn't stop.

Posted detailed arguments: But i see there were some words in it which can be seen as dismissiveness. Sorry, i wouldn't justify me with too frankly talking over "bias", again. Sorry.

Again, recent edits are better from both sides. But: Its a lot easier for me, to carefully select words for an article - especially scientific or technology related - then just talking.

Probably this hadn't happened if i had more practice with common speech, and also understand the cultural background better: Couldn't find the right words. Also i tried to be calm, and simply bring in my scientific, engineering knowledge and opinions, it didn't worked. Tagremover (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing a technical analysis of what you think is the problem on the article subject, however the article talk page is not the place to do it. That section was correctly hatted, although I wouldn't have called it a forum style posting so much as it is original research. The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article. There is a very subtle difference between the two. The former is discussing the subject and its details while the latter is not. Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct. The whole point of the article is to describe the 787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus. That would belong in another article like Comparison of Airbus A380 with Boeing 787 Dreamliner so stop bringing that up on the 787 talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait, i will give you an detailed answer in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article talk page and the section Didymus started on tommorris's talk, I'm not encouraged that Didymus understand in the slightest what Misplaced Pages does or how we work. This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a PR center, nor is it a shouting contest. NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Misplaced Pages, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from, all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him. Didymus's repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him. I would support, at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban (Didymus)

User:Didymus Judas Thomas's editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary. His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS. I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I almost forgot about this until... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I did the Google search proposed by Tom Morris above, and it's obviously the same person. Seems obsessed by this topic and probably a COI. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --John (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same. Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them. We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them". Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Is it possible, Nstrauss, that you're misunderstanding what a topic ban is? It's not a block or a technical limitation of Didymus's ability to contribute; it's just a way to redirect him to an area where he doesn't get into so much trouble. Most editors regard a block as significantly more harsh a punishment than a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A sidenote

In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus), is anyone interested in teasing out what's going on in the history of User:Houseac, where a couple of SPAs and the aforementioned IP/Didymus have been active? I can't find a connection between the subject of that fake article and the clinic Didymus was so interested in. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. I'd love to know though. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the IP appears to belong to a wireless (mobile phone) company, it's entirely possible the two users have nothing to do with each other other than using the same cell network. It's not impossible that there's a connection, but the confluence of IPs doesn't necessarily show much of anything, since wireless IPs tend to be dynamic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional accusations of puppetry and incivility While I have no beef (well I hope it's beef) in this burrito article (for the record I love S.F. burritos), I too have experienced recent unpleasantries with Viriditas being uncivil and accusing others of puppetry. In a unrelated burrito & Viriditas matter, I politely asked another user on their talkpage to be more careful about using "vandalism" in edit summaries when reverting edits. Viriditas joins the conversation and accuses me of editing on behalf of a "block sock puppet". Then further on in the conversation Viriditas makes a completely unfounded and grossly offensive statement that I have "been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ". I assume being called a homophobe is a violation of WP:NPA. I also personally find the statement claiming I'm doing something on behalf of any religion repugnant (my apologies to editors of faith in advance, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your beliefs). Despite Viriditas requesting me not to post on his talk page, I ignored his request in light of his gross accusations and warned him with a template. His response was to delete the warning (no big deal), however his edit summary once again made another accusation of puppetry stating "What part of "banned from my talk page" don't you understand sock?". I had some email conversations with another editor about this incident, and as a result of those discussions and some passing time I decided to take no action. However I see that this is not an isolated incident. I don't know what administrative action should be taken here, but at the very least Viriditas should be admonished for this behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, looking back, is not the first statement made by Viriditas that could be considered an Ad hominem argument which falls under WP:WIAPA. The initial re-reversion came after this statement:

We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

This reversion of a reversion, did not abide by WP:BRD. I replied to this by asking for civility, as at that point I continued to assume good faith. Therefor this makes, IMHO, two events where Viriditas had posted something that falls within WIAPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The aforementioned RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Viriditas1, is proposed for deletion, "Uncertified RFC/U after 48 hours". However, the RfC policy says "Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours"; it does not say that it needs to be certified within 48 hours, and the RfC makes a claim that more than one user tried and failed to resolve the dispute, though there is as yet no second certified. As such, I am unwilling right now to delete it since I don't think the letter of the law says I should. A second opinion from an admin would be welcome; there do appear to be concerns about Viriditas's behavior, though I cannot judge the validity of such claims--I'll err on the side of caution since, as far as I know, RightCow and Rosetta are not trolls. For the record, I also like burritos, though for some reason they remind me of sepositories. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC is gone now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, is it possible to undue the deletion? Although all the content can be found through searching through the history of the article, its talk page, and the talk page of Viriditas, the work done to create it already alleviates the need to do much of that searching. This will assist non-involve editors in quickly looking at the history of the discussion, and the issues I believe have occured.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against restoring the RfC; I did read it before deleting it, and I couldn't see anything that is worthy of an RfC, which is probably why nobody would certify it within the time limit. Why not just continue to discuss the matter in article talk? Or not; it's hardly an earth-shaking issue you are in dispute over. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I agree with John on its content. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my first try at formating an RfC/UC, I sincerely hope that the events in question were not lost due to my poor formatting. Moreover, I hope that I rarely (if ever) have to create another one. Ideally all editors whom I happen to discuss content with will not require an RfC/UC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIVIL  I added Viriditas' talk page to my watch list after an incident, and regularly see personal attacks used to remove edit comments.  I support the call for an admin warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have not accused RightCowLeftCoast of any sock puppetry. He has apparently misunderstood my comments as well as most of the discussion on the talk page, including: how we use appropriate sources (not poems that you find in a Google search!) what constitutes original research (we don't add source A and source B together to come up with content C), how verifiability helps us choose content (if we can't verify what a source says we usually can't use it if there is a dispute), and more importantly, how to resolve disputes on the talk page (it means actually discussing the topic not asking others to answer for you or relying on the answers of others). In response to all of these questions, he has made repeated accusations of incivility rather than engage in the discussion. This pattern tends to look like WP:IDHT after a while. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a board to discuss content dispute, but editor's actions. I believe that I have responded by attempting to refute the points brought up, by explaining the guidelines and policies as I understand it, and so far there is a plurality of editors who have stated that I have and for the most part agreed with me. I have gone through dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion, and began an RfC which has lead to the plurality that I have stated above. When faced with comments that I believe were uncivil I kindly asked that incivility ceased, only for continued incivility. I had hoped that it would not come to this, however after two instances that IMHO fall under WP:WIAPA...

Regardless, if I am not accused of sockpuppetry, it is still bad form to address that statement by Biancles as a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you've tried very, vey hard to turn into a conduct dispute by ignoring the questions and points raised in the discussion and accusing me of incivility over and over again. To me, this is a case of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet I have not ignored questions, and points, and have answered them. Others have stated, not just Biancles, that I have done so. However, at the same time I have had several replies which IMHO are uncivil, and have been accused of IDHT and not answering the questions and points posted by Viriditas.

Based on what others have posted IDHT is not the case, therefore please stop making the false accusation. If Viriditas believes IDHT still occurs, may I say sorry in advance for any misunderstanding this may cause, as I have done in the past I will continue to reply and answer questions and points (even if others believe I am not).

As I said before, it is OK for us not to agree, as long as we remain civil. As I have said, since we did not disagree I followed the dispute resolution (3O & RfC) process and a consensus was formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous thread and it's implausible that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand, I would like to know why any editor is above any action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But, that's not what he said or implied. This is another example of your continuing misreading of comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is implied? This is why I am asking for an expansion of comment, for clarification. What about this thread is ridiculous? What is meant by "it's implausable that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas"? What is implausible, that admin action will occur, or that admin action will occur that reflects upon Viriditas, something else?

I would have liked to avoid all this. This could have been done through civil discussion; yet here we are.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why any editor is above any action No one is above any action, but your alleged question is a simple example of "Begging the question", where it assumes that there is some action that needs to be taken. And "we" are here because you chose (unnecessarily) to be here, so you really shouldn't be talking about how you wanted to avoid anything. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I meant. When I say I would have liked to avoid all this, I mean I would have liked it if Ad hominem arguments made against me did not happen, I mean I would have liked it if the conversation on the Burrito Talk Page was civil, I mean if those two things did not occur, the situation would have never arose that lead me to starting this discussion. I hope this is more clear.

I had tried to ask (multiple times) Viriditas to be civil. I had went through the dispute resolution process(es) that has established the present consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The word "ridiculous" is defined at wiktionary as "Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd."  The use of such language does not befit a collegial atmosphere.  The use of such language should inure to the originator.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that this thread is "ridiculous" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

So far, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. The only comment actually calling anyone a sock was in removing a generic warning template placed by User:Little_green_rosetta (whom Viriditas had previously asked not to post to his Talk page.) That was somewhat inappropriate but, given he wanted no contact from the editor, Viriditas was understandably upset at having a template slapped on his Talk by someone he wanted no contact with. And, given that this was from December 27, I don't think it qualifies as an "incident" needing immediate action. A troutslap is about all that would be warranted.

I haven't got time at the moment for a details combing through contributions to see if the accusations of meatpuppetry are valid or not, so I'll refrain from comment there. It does warrant some investigation to see if those comments are appropriate. If nothing else, there's a possible WP:BOOMERANG here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:CIVIL are there allowances such that an editor who is "understandably upset" can call another editor a "sock"?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You stipulate that you have no evidence, yet by using the word "boomerang" suggest that RCLC is under suspicion of meatpuppetry.  Your point in doing so escapes me.  Here is a better question, in the circumstance, what was an appropriate response from Viriditas?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas

Note: Please compare the closed and collapsed thread "Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"" above, which was started by User:Deicas. It is highly relevant to this request. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

He has been here twice, and both times told that admins are not going to intervene in a content dispute. He has a a whole section on Talk:Paul Krugman devoted to uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up. He has been told over and over about to cease his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitions of his oft-rejected arguments. So what does he do now? He posts yet another point-by-point argument for inclusion of material that half a dozen people have already said is inappropriate because it's an off-hand remark taken out of context. Nobody should have to put up with this; I haven't measured it because nobody should have to work that hard, but I would guess that half if not more of the discussion on this article is devoted to his obstinate refusal to accept that everyone rejects his arguments. We could make progress in improving what is a pretty badly broken article if we didn't have to deal with (a) his bone-headed refusal to admit that his arguments are not being accepted, and that in fact people have specific (and in my opinion utterly valid) counter-arguments which he needs to address instead of brushing off, and (b) his propensity to fill the page with line after line of pseudo-logical bloviating which turn what should be one sentence (or at least short paragraph) responses into huge tracts of badly-formatted text which defies reading. I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this, poring over every bad argument at least one if not ten times; this has been hammered on so much that I don't see why we have to be tormented so. Please tell him he has to edit something else and leave at least this article alone. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet ready to support that proposition, although I am very sympathetic to the frustration. I wish there was some way to get through, because facts, polices, guidelines, analogies, rational arguments, and other approaches have failed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to hurry off somewhere, so I don't have time for a detailed response. But I've looked over the talk page, and don't think the behavior yet justifies a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• How successful was your WP:RFC/U? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this". Right there. just above these lines. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to User:Mangoe's request that I be topic-banned from Paul Krugman I respond:

In the course of contentious discussion at, and associated with, Talk:Paul Krugman I have observed a number of editors engaging in:

1) Extensive violations of WP:TEDIOUS, notably

"One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" and;

2) Extensive violations of WP:GOODFAITH.

If anyone wants to see examples of these acts of WP:TEDIOUS and WP:GOODFAITH violations then ask and I will provide them below.

In response to this use of WP:TEDIOUS and violations of WP:GOODFAITH, and in the apparent absence of any other way to respond, I have engaged in close and careful logical argumentation with a view toward reasoning out the issue(s) in dispute. This "reasoning out" effort is *entirely* consistent with the best Misplaced Pages standards. If someone disputes my claim of "*entirely* consistent" I encourage them to do so.

If there are disinterested observers who believe that User:Mangoe's request, "PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas", on it's face, possesses *any* merit then please say so and I will address the accusations in detail. If there is a particular claim in User:Mangoe's request (e.g. "pseudo-logical bloviating", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" "obstinate refusal", "bone-headed", "badly-formatted text", "uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up", "bad argument" ) that you would like me to address then please mention that portion. Deicas (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that Deicas wants "logical argumentation" and "reasoning out" - which are good things of course - but to him these basically mean "badgering people until they agree or give up". Deicas seems to confuse "using logic and reason" with "agree with me!". A logical and rational person is, by definition, open to persuasion. Here what we have is more of a rhetorical tactic which seeks to mimic logic and rational argument to win a dispute in favor of an already arrived at conclusion. I believe that kind of behavior is called "sophistry".

Basically what happens is that someone says "X is Y". Then Deicas says "can you please provide evidence that X is Y". Ok, fair enough, here's the evidence. Then Deicas responds with "can you please provide evidence that your evidence shows that X is Y". Huh? What? Ok, let's try that. Here's evidence that the evidence provided is evidence. Then you get "can you please provide evidence that the evidence you provided to show that the evidence showing X is Y is valid?" etc.

Or someone says "Misplaced Pages policy says Z". Deicas says "can you please show the Misplaced Pages policy which says Z". Sure, here it is. "Can you please give a link to a policy which says that the policy you quoted is applicable". Etc. etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure Deicas would respond to my above characterization of his attitude with a "can you please provide evidence where I have done that". Well, the talk page of the article on Paul Krugman for one. But of course it's somewhat of an exaggeration, meant to illustrate the point (another rhetorical trick - to take what someone says ultra-literally). But the point is valid.

I guess it's possible that Deicas is acting in good faith and that he sincerely believes he is the only "rational and logical" person around on this article. Still, for all practical purposes, this is nothing but obstinacy and tendentiousness which is essentially indistinguishable from straight up bad faithed POV-pushing and "defending the truth". Both phenomenon - whether done in good faith or not - suffer from a good dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE, which is the essence of the problem here. And apparently, Deicas has been at it for two years (albeit, I think, with a break), which has been noted by several commentators on the talk page.

Topic ban from Paul Krugman would be justifiable though honestly, I expect he'll just pick another article to do the same thing on. That's sort of the problem with people who are convinced that they are the only "rational and logical" ones around.Volunteer Marek 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is insisted that we put this through WP:RFC/U I will bow to that insistence, but I really am more inclined to let Deicas have his way on the article than make it three times in three months. We'll just repeat everything we've done here and on the talk page, and my stamina is not limitless. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the point of wearing down the opposition, everyone gives up and leaves allowing whatever changes one wishes to go forward. Insomesia (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An RFC would be pointless bureaucracy in this case, as there's already plenty of evidence regarding behavior and plenty of feedback on same. Just take a quick skim of

• The article talk page in question, particularly this part
• This trainwreck of a Dispute Resolution attempt
• This ANI thread
• This follow-up when Deicas didn't get his way on the original thread
• This bit of forum-shopping.

So, is further bureaucracy needed? --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas topic ban proposal

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

This proposal is to ban the editor from the Paul Krugman article and related subjects broadly construed.

The user Deicas has become an SPA account since January of 2011 (accounting to more than half of this editor's contributions). The editor has become extremely disruptive on a number of venues (including this one) and has a number of issues including WP:ICANTHEARYOU where he has been advised a number of times on policy, procedure and guidelines, but refuses to "get the point". The user has been edit warring and disrupting the Krugman article to such a point that the article has been locked until January 20. A recent AN/I was hatted by Admin User:Jayron32 with the heading "OP has been advised on how to proceed". Unfortunately, that does not mean the editor has or ever will take the advice. The editor does not lack the ability to communicate, but refuses to do so in an informal manner and continues Wikilawyering at almost every turn, making it nearly impossible to understand the basic question or concern, which appears to be purposely devised.

Support as proposer.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Amadscientist. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am having a very hard time seeing what benefit Deicas could be to Paul Krugman specifically and Misplaced Pages in general. Deicas insists that editors opposing Deicas' suggested changes are making "no rational argumentation". What's really happening is that editors are making normal informal but logical arguments in supporting or objecting to suggested changes. Deicas does the exact opposite of both of those things: Deicas makes illogical arguments but with a highly "formal logic"-sounding format and in legalese. Additionally, Deicas insists that other editors conform to Deicas' own pseudo-formal logic format while totally overlooking the easily accessible points in the straightforward, plain-language arguments others make. And, when other editors refuse, as it's unreasonable of Deicas to require other editors to reformat and restate and reformat and restate their points to Decias' satisfaction, Deicas simply declares whatever the other editors wrote to be invalid, restates Decias' own position, and declares that Deicas' position is therefore "The Consensus". This one of the worst cases of WP:SOUP I've run across in a while. Zad68 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above which I think echos Zad68's pretty closely (and that WP:SOUP essay - man, I wish I've been aware of this earlier).Volunteer Marek 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my examination of D's contribs during the previous thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this bullshit has gone on long enough. What's the over/under on him being indeffed?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- we've had far too much disruption on Krugman from Deicas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've been wondering how long the others at Talk:Paul_Krugman were going to put up with his disruptive nonsense. I've noticed at least two other editors giving him advice and guidance, only to become discouraged and frustrated (as we all are) by his puzzling comments -- which seem to be a nearly laughable form of wiki-lawyering. He does not appear to know the meaning of collaboration, he takes disagreement personally (and annoyingly asks everyone to strike comments he doesn't like), and I believe that he's violated wp:canvassing more than once. Also I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that in those two years absent from editing (Jan. '11 to Jan.'13), he was using a different account. El duderino 07:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support following the reasoning of the proposer and the supporters. Alternate solution: restrict Deicas to fifteen words or less comments at Paul Krugman and related topics.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as someone who would like the talk page to contribute to making the article better, instead of endless arguments about the same things over and over again. FurrySings (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - xe may be annoying and in the minority, but that's no reason for a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, classic wikilawyering and attempting to get one's way by argumentum ad nauseam goes far beyond "annoying", Nathan. It hugely wastes the time and energies of good-faith contributors who could be doing something useful. I support the topic ban, but I actually think it's a mild measure here. I could see an indefblock, per Little green rosetta. Thanks for reminding me of the WP:SOUP essay, Zad; that's exactly what this is a bad case of. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

Indef would be fine with me. I think topic bans are useful in a very narrow range of situations, of which this is not one. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, blocks require admin intervention and, as yet, they do not feel such action is needed. A topic ban (here) is a community sanction when an editor is disruptive in a specific area but may yet be able to contribute positively elsewhere. I don't think a block is needed right now, but may be in the near future if the editor cannot contribute in a constructive manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, broadly construed, this is not opposition to the editor themselves but in the way they have conducted themselves rendering all discussions hopeless. We are here to build content collaboratively not to engage in endless discussions and wikilawyer each other. No one has rejected reasonable points of discussion, in fact, they have been repeatedly addressed. That the editor is defending problematic edits to a BLP bringing Misplaced Pages's credibility into question needs to be taken seriously. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It a classic example of polite tendentiousness. I'm not sure if Deicas realises it, but he's wasting a lot of people's time. LK (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U

Given that there was at least one call for it, I have prepared Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deicas should people feel it a necessary prelude to action. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary, enough ink has been spilt. Look at the support for the proposal above. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

User:Kyntale

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

User:Kyntale has violated 3RR here. An admin please step in and take the necessary action. The content he's added wreaks of COI from a non notable magazine and affects article neutrality and undue.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ernst, it's been reverted again. But there was nothing on the editor's talk page until you posted there: if any of the reverters had left a 3R warning, I could easily have blocked for the next time they reverted. I've warned them, and no doubt they'll be blocked if there is a next time. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted 9 times!!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, was getting fed up with reverting him.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

IP following me and possibly threating

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

This is one of his edits . He probably left the message at my talk page, like he is anonmymus and he doesn't forget. What can be done about this IP? And please, check if this user has any connection to User:San culottes, as his sock puppets often made similiar edits concerning me only. --Wüstenfuchs 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of the wikihounding policy due to edit warring and personal attacks and I think that the IP should be blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What?

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

Hi this user keeps undoing my edits from this user because of sillyness. Carson is a sockpuppet of me and someone else said to blank my talk page so I told Carson and the user undid it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alameda15 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You can blank the talk page of your primary account, but the notice on the sock account will stay unless you can get the admin who posted it King of Hearts (talk · contribs) to agree to remove it. NE Ent 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have tagged the user page as a sock and redirected the talk to it. This is the normal method of dealing with sock accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. There's an open, two month old request for closure on that vary topic, in case any admin/senior editor has time on their hands.... NE Ent 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat by user Flyboyguy

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

• Flyboyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When challenged about changes made to the article Reichen Lehmkuhl this user has replied with a legal threat, alleging defamation and claiming a relevant power of attorney. William Avery (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as the threat was clear. I've also removed the promotional edits added by the editor to the article, which also made the article look like an unholy mess. At the same time, I've severely pruned back the section that I imagine the editor found objectionable. it was miserably written (tabloidy), and almost every source was dead. It was too problematic from a BLP point of view to have all those dead links. The section is now short, neutral, and sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review request

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

This was my first block in so I'm posting this for review. The Fake ID (talk · contribs) was created seemingly just to review a good article candidate which had previously been reviewed by an involved editor. I have reverted their edits and blocked them. I am open to any administrator undoing my actions if I made a mistake. I have also opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you inadvertently omit some words above ("my first block in")? In any event, the block and the undoing of the user's edits seem reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2013? Anyway, the block is fine per usual standard around here which, unfortunately, is often crappy. Why not first ask the user if they're an alternate account first? What's with the FPP on J Milburn's user page? Tacky. NE Ent 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, NE, crappy and tacky in one short response. That's crusty even for you. I see no point in asking The Fake ID who he is. What kind of response would be helpful? It doesn't surprise me that you know more Misplaced Pages acronyms than I do, so I'll bite: what's FPP? Flying purple pundits?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My first block in a while, I was meaning. FPP? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good, I'm not the only one.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Free picture promotion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Full page protection, although I don't see that it's related to the block. —Torchiest _edits 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had it like that for several years. It's never been mentioned before as I remember, and has never created any issues. Before it was protected, it attracted a lot of vandalism. Is it really a problem? I'm certainly not seeing what's "tacky" about it. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, either. It might be problematic to indefinitely lock your talk page, but generally except for removing vandalism, no one should edit your user page but you. And I agree - tacky is an odd word to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make this stuff up -- FPP is periodically used to stand for full page protection 1 2 3. Thought maybe J Milburn was newly minted mop wielder, went to user page and the first thing that popped was the "view source" in placed of the usual "edit this page." Contrary to the gestalt of wikipedia -- "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Misplaced Pages."NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not pre-emptive, and my userpage is not an article. I'm not a new admin, I just don't hang around this noticeboard. This thread reminds me why. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that this thread is not giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling? I confess I'm not one of those admins who's smart enough to stay away from here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

JM, would it cheer you a bit if I said that I assumed "FPP" stood for "Frowning Philosopher Picture"?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they're an editor who doesn't want to be associated with a minor religion in India for some personal real-life issues. How the heck would I know? That's why you ask the question. I thought there was a good faith thing around here somewhere, you know? NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all assumptions, including good faith, are reasonable depending on the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the time I've been active on Misplaced Pages, when it comes to AGF I have observed that you generally tend to reap what you sow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good and obvious block. I've deleted the GA review because not only is it obviously created by a sock of the original GA author (who shouldn't have been reviewing it), but even a cursory examination of the article shows that, generally well-written that it is, it doesn't reach GA yet - there are a number of prose issues. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious block given what happened. FurrySings (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge's refactoring of comments

topic ban

I was topic banned from the aspartame controversy page about 17 months ago. The first topic ban was for 3 months. I waited 3 months and assumed that when 3 months passed the ban would be lifted. It was but The administrator had the option of reinstating the ban at his whim. I had no chance to even present a case. Consequently when I signed on I was quickly topic banned for 1 year. Now one year has passed and I am allowed back on. My concern is that I am now forever subject to another topic ban on a whim of some administrator with no chance to even present a case. This is not fair. What option do i have? Can I get the original topic ban reversed. Will this stay with me for years?

Also before the original ban I was told by Kingoomieiii that i would not be banned if i was not impolite. i was polite but this advice was wrong. You should not give out false advice. Also before the original ban was in place i tried to change and all the warnings stopped..... or so i thought. In fact they moved to my talk page where i neglected to see them ( yes this was my fault) Arydberg (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Myself and many other editors have explained to you over the last year that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX on which to stand and push an anti aspartame POV. So long as you don't attempt to push a fringe POV on aspartame then you won't get topic banned, but you've made it clear that you believe it is a bad substance and therefore feel the need to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You were not rebanned at an admin's whim, you were rebanned because you continued the behavior that got you banned in the first place; so long as you don't continue your previous behavior then you won't be rebanned, it's really that simple. Sædon 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, I see no real reason to repeal the topic ban on Aspartame. You clearly don't yet get it. Saedon has condensed the entire situation pretty well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Saedon; also, don't ignore messages and warnings on your talk page in the future, and it won't seem so surprising if and when you're blocked or banned. KillerChihuahua 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso's disruptive conduct

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

Ihardlythinkso is calling my edits as "close to vandalism" and "baiting"!! please see this diff. All that I did replace - (hyphen) with N/A (Not available) to this section of Chess960 article. Is this not a personal attack?! Ihardlythinkso says in edit summary that "lost AGF with you". (Please take a look at history if you want evidence). When did I do any bad faith edit? All that I did was an effort to improve articles that need improvement. Ihardlythinkso calls me as intentionally dense and enjoys pissing other editors!! I just tried to clarify the article. The editor also describes my edits as unnecessary edits. Forgot to put name 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to feel WP:BRD and collaborative discussion, when there is disagreement about change, doesn't apply to him. . It's been near impossible to get him to article Talk, he prefers to force his changes, he'd rather revert-war. On the current change disagreement, I opened a discussion at his User talk, which he totally ignored. Excuse me, but I thought this was a collaborative project where discussion is entered into when there is disagreement over a change. User:Forgot to put name knows when there is disagreement, but prefers his steamroller rather than any discussion or collaboration. Yes, I've lost patience with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the discussion that you opened at my talk page. I pointed you the meaning of N/A at Wiktionary and then made the change. You tell that the meaning of N/A is "ambiguous" since it has nearly six definitions. OK, let's write the meaning of N/A at the end of the table. Is it OK now?? Or let's convert the hyphen into em dash for clarity (—). Let's stop the "revert-war" here. I'm suggesting use of em dash because hyphen is used only for connecting two words. But I think N/A is more appropriate here because readers are likely to get confused. I would like to tell why I didn't come to article talk page. I didn't come to article talk page because it's nearly impossible to establish consensus on talk page. (Almost noone is watching the page). And to establish consensus more than 2 people should be there in discussion. The talk page is not well patrolled too. That's why I didn't go to the talk. I admit that I edit-warred a little bit, but I never talked impolitely (which Ihardlythinkso did). Forgot to put name 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you ignored the fact I had clear disagreement with your change at your User talk, and your response there even lead me to believe you accepted & agreed with my objections. Then, w/o having engaged in any discussion points, you went back to the article and reverted twice, leaving somewhat belligerent edit summaries. Now you are trying to conduct content discussion *here* with me, for the first time at any location, at an ANI you opened for my blood! This is not the place for content discussions. (But apparently you think it's a good time/place, now that at ANI, the "blocking gun" is placed to my head!?!?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you admit to edit warring, you admit to disfavor discussion at article Talk, and you admit to awareness of WP:BRD, but prefer to ignore it. But you object to impoliteness in the face of all this, and bay for my blood at ANI, which is supposed to be a last-resort mechanism. And you misuse it further, by trying to carry on content discussion here when you think I'm under a gun. Please take a hard look at your own Wiki-conduct first, before complaining about others'. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You two: We've had templates for marking table cells, for some time, now. There's a whole list of them at Template:No/doc#Templates in this series, and they let editors and readers distinguish between cells that haven't been filled in yet and cells that are intentionally empty. Use {{n/a}} for inapplicable cells and {{dunno}} for unknown data. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx for pointing out. (I was looking for conventions re empty cells, but couldn't find anything in HELP:TABLES or MOS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G for the suggestions! Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• It would be desirable for Ihardlythinkso to use calmer language—there are ways of expressing an opinion in a more subtle manner, and apart from being nice, that avoids distractions from the underlying topic when people inevitably complain about a WP:CIVIL violation. However I happened to notice this edit by FTPN at WP:VAND. I reverted the change since the original was obviously correct (and the change made no sense), but FTPN restored the edit before asking exactly what the problem was. I don't feel like taking the time to work out the rights/wrongs at Chess960, but if similar issues are occurring at that article, I can understand Ihardlythinkso's concern. Also, raising an ANI report over this incident is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thx for your comments. I know I lost some cool. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments! @Ihardlythinkso, I was not discussing about content, I was discussing about your conduct towards me (See header of this thread). Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about?? (Read what you wrote. You attempted to conduct content discussion with me here, at ANI, after baying for my blood. I do not know why you have such a problem with facts that are right in front of you. Also your just-now edit sums, "please don't violate the civility policy again", are hypocritical: you ignore your own incivilities, namely edit-warring, distain for WP:BRD, and informing everyone you have no use for the article Talk. You also leave belligerent edit sums. Do you care to point more fingers at who is uncivil?? You can get off my back now, yes?? Because it's gotten downright creepy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I have no use at article talk. But I have explained why it's so. I never lost my cool as you did. Let's end the lengthy discussion here. Compromise? Forgot to put name 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • You have already been told that opening of the ANI was inappropriate. So you have no basis for continuing to levy accusation against me as you did in your recent edit-summaries here. You claim upfront you have "no use for article Talk", as though it is some sort of virtue, even though it flies in the face of fundamental WP principles re collaboration between editors, and WP content dispute resolutin policy & guidelines. So on what basis do I "compromise" with you?? (Your behavior is rather "uncompromising" -- wouldn't you say?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Using article talk for content disputes isn't really optional -- you're required to use it if there are disputes. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To Admins: How am I supposed to work collaboratively with this editor, when he has no problem admitting he doesn't plan on using article Talk for content resolution discussion?? I'm all ears. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By not working mano-a-mano for months with a new editor until you lose your cool. Misplaced Pages is a numbers games (e.g. consensus). At some point when you recognize you're just not going to agree it's time to get help (e.g. WP:3RD, WP:DRN,WikiProject Chess. Also, article talk is way better than user talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm all confused. Don't know what to do now. This has received 3 third-party comments and they have said that you are rude towards me. (Aren't you?) They tell that they have no time to examine whether my edits are problematic or no. Whatever be the condition, you mustn't lose your cool. (As you said another: "uncompromising", but my edits were not so problematic that it's uncompromising, actually your behavior towards me is very rude). If you say so much that my behavior is problematic, then why don't you see WP:3O? Already received a third opinion that we should use the {{n/a}} or {{dunno}} templates. Because I am little bit new at WP, I may have misused this noticeboard. If you feel that my behavior is little bit problematic, then you are free to educate me (Educate me if you want to do so). You are telling to admins that how to work collaboratively with me, then work collaboratively with me by compromising and using the templates mentioned above. If consensus supports you, then I will agree that I'm uncivil and a problematic editor. Forgot to put name 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot, you've been told that using article Talk is not optional. You've been told the ANI thread was inappropriate. You admit edit-warring, but will you continue in that vein? (Revert-warring is inherently incivil.) "Consensus" isn't needed to see the behaviors problematic. No one is turning the ANI around on you. IMO you need to work on more ability engaging discussion, taking a view & convincing the others, listening to their side too & remaining objective. And I have my own things I need to improve as well. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rutebega for the advice! Forgot to put name 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would add a couple of comments to Rutebega's advice. First, both parties were edit-warring, not just Forgot. Second, Ihardlythinkso is under no obligation to help other editors, but if he elects to interpose himself in the dispute, he must behave appropriately. Many of his comments on Forgot's talk page and here have not been constructive. I'm closing this now as I don't see anything more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to User:Rutebega

User:Rutebega, "inexplicable incivility"??? I've got an explanation for you: after trying repeatedly to discuss and work things out with the user, his crass response in reverting without consensus, and leaving belligerent edit summaries, broke down my patience. And that is because I am a human, with limited patience, and not a machine or a god, with infinite patience. (Does that help you now, because I'd hate for things to seem "inexplicable" to you.) Secondly, you seem to think that I said or believe that "making unconstructive edits in good faith" is incivil. (Where did you get that idea?? What did I say to lead you to that conclusion?? Do I have to repeat here what I called incivil from User:Forget, or, can you spare me that and go re-read what I wrote??) "Commenting on editors instead fo their edits is incivil." I already knew that. Your reminder is in no way helpful (but of course, it perhaps makes you, as 1+ years editor, feel better to lecture and treat other editors as naughty children!?) "When another editor makes a mistake, your attitude should be ". Well Rutebetga, there are behaviors to look at too, it is the behaviors that were attached to the mistakes, like belligerent edit sums and in-your-face reverts without discussion, that broke my patience, not any good-faith edits of themselves. The attitudes that User:Forgot displayed, with his distain for WP:BRD and article Talk, are intentional, choices deliberately made. They are not "innocent mistakes" made out of some knowledge I can offer to correct. (For example, in earlier contact with this editor at the article, when I pointed out WP:BRD to him, he asserted it was an essay, not policy, and therefore he could ignore it. Even in this ANI thread he has taken the position of "justifying" no use of article Talk. Did he say that he learned anything about this? That he should correct that? Where? Did I miss it?) "If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I hope you'll respect that more in the future." That is pretty insulting, Rutebega! To accuse me of "not having respect", when it was a simple case of my patience wearing thin and then breaking, because I am human and not a machine, after trying to work and collaborate with this bullying user, over time at that article. (And if you like to tell someone they should "show more respect", wouldn't User:Forgot be a good candidate for those messages, seeing that he feels emboldened here to unrepentingly explain why he doesn't believe in using article Talk or WP:BRD?? Is that being "respectful" to "bulding an encyclopedia"?? You haven't accused User:Forgot of showing disrespect, even though he's aware of the policies but chooses to ignore them, yet you accuse me for showing disrespect, and having a bad attitude, toward encyclopedia-building, when it was a simple case of my patience breaking down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to prevent you from posting to a closed discussion, not only as a matter of procedural principle, but partly because I felt that any continuation of this discussion would be unproductive and actually be to your detriment. Your multi-pronged attack (really more like a rant) is a confirmation of my view. My suggestion to Rutebega, whose advice I thought was even-handed and temperate, is not to respond, but that, of course is up to them. I will leave this "new" discussion open for a bit in the unlikely event that it becomes helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, I can see that you are taking an antagonistic view of this, since this seems to be your response to my good-faith Qs at your User talk, which you ignored. To characterize my responses to User:Rutebega's comments as, I guess, part of a "multi-pronged attack", is a wholescale mischaracterization, false and untrue. It is an aggressive accusation. The fact you have opinion his comments were "even-handed and temperate" is your opinion. I agree that some of his comments were as you described, but some weren't. I responded to those I objected to. The fact you don't like my response, does not give you the right to mischaracterize them as "attacks". User:Rutegega chose to come to this ANI, his is not an Administrator. In my view you should have closed this ANI earlier, since all issues were already efficiently handled by the two Administrators responding. The fact the ANI was left open and User:Rutebega decided to come voluntarily here and leave comments is not my responsibility, and I am entitled to my own opinion on the quailty of some of his comments when they relate to my character as editor. Let me remind you that it was not my idea to be at ANI at all, the responding Administrator felt the opening of it was inappropriate. Why wasn't it closed then? The fact this is a public board and comments were continued to be directed at me by User:Forgot and User:Rutebega, is not of my doing, not my choice, nothing I asked for, and nothing I deserved. So there will be responses. I'm aware the comments here are public view and are retained forever, and I endeavor to be limited and careful with my own. But I'm not particularly happy with the constant burden of having to leave defensive comments, when I never asked to be at this inappropriate ANI, and never solicited the followup comments from User:Forget and User:Rutebega. So stop blaming me for that, and stop calling my responses to unsolicited comments a "rant" and "attack". The commentary and irresponsible culture at ANI was established long before I came on board as WP editor, and I am not responsible for it; neither do I participate in it. As a result you will never see me open an ANI, and, I don't much like being here to defend myself from condescending comments either, in this public forum. The fact I have to be here defending against unfair comments is total disruption to my time as editor here, if you want to know a good defiition of disruption. I could have been working on articles, instead, I've been here nearly one day, defending myself from unsolicited, unfair comments on a public board where comments are kept ... forever. A fine day. And a total waste of my time. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with some basics. Which editors involved here are not trying to make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia? Ø
Which editors are trying? Bbb23, Forgot to put name, Ihardlythinkso, Johnuniq, Rutebega, Uncle G listed alphabetically
Unfortunately ANI has been convoluted since the well meaning but boneheaded Wikiquette Assistance shutdown, 'cause now it's a mix of actual incidents requiring admin permissions to address and good faith editors who could use some help getting along. This thread could've / would've / should've been over after Johnuniq's well thought out comment and Ihtso's admission they "lost some cool". Unfortunately the thread continued and things ramped up again. Rutebega's comment, while obviously made in good faith, was problematic in that it lacked finesse -- it was decent through "Commenting on editors instead of their edits is incivil. " but phrases like "beating them down" are escalatory rather than deescalatory, and "If you're here to build an encyclopedia," is horribly offensive bad faith. 14000 mainspace edits, 67% article -- is there any possible question this is an encyclopedia builder??
So if an editor who hasn't participated could be so kind as to close this no harm, no foul? NE Ent 23:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Araksi Cetinyan

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

User:Sue Rangell, known for a history of disputed AfD closures (she got warnings by about a dozen of users though never conceded) closed this highly contested AfD as keep. I request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion since here an administrator closure is required. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion belongs in DRV. It looked pretty straightforward to me. With only a single !vote to delete (by an IP account), and five !votes to keep (by well established editors citing Misplaced Pages policy), I wouldn't call it "highly contested". I get a lot of negativity for closing discussions because I am not an admin, but if you look through my closes, generally the disputed ones are followed up by an admin who closes it the same way, or otherwise says I did nothing wrong. I have been on Misplaced Pages a very long time, and I am trusted with permissions that some admins do not have. I think I can be trusted to close a few discussions, especially ones as obvious as this. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, in contrast to your opinion, mine is that you should be topic-banned from AfD despite your advanced permissions. In this particular discussion, there are at least two users proposing merge and redirect. The result could be merge, or no consensus. If the result is keep, it should be at least justified which you as usual failed to do. I could easily find couple of dozen of examples of your doubtful AfD closures, and there are many in the history of your talk page, but just to save space this is another one: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan (note that I was not involved).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Your explanation concerns me somewhat. It certainly implies that you just counted votes. You made no reference above that implies that you looked at E4024's arguments. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Vesey, I hope there was nothing wrong in my arguments... --E4024 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, E4024, I thought you made powerful arguments. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty apparent that the closer here just doesn't get that they should not be closing AfD's like this, despite a page full of advice to the contrary. I agree that a topic ban on closing AfD's is appropriate here. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• If it's deletion review you're looking for, please take this case to DRV.
• If it's a topic ban you're looking for, make a clear-cut case (with plenty of citations) for why you feel the editor in question should face restrictions.

Neither of those discussions belong on ANI; please take the former to DRV and the latter to AN, if you're so inclined. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Feel free to re-open said issues in the appropriate channels. m.o.p 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wasn't clear keep, reverted closure -- let an admin do it. NE Ent 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong OBJECTION - Non admins reverting a close is illegal under WP:NACD. The proper way to dispute a close is via WP:DRV --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Boston Legal; STRONG OBJECTION isn't helpful (caps generally aren't) and we don't have laws. In any case, I have (as an admin) re-opened the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but the reversion was vandalism under WP:NACD. Which reads: "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is not "anything that doesn't follow an ambiguously written policy"; "can be reopened by any administrator" != "no non-administrator can re-open it". Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oliver. Indeed, thankfully we are not in a courtroom --Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it would be very dangerous to apply that to other guidlines where Administrators are given responsibilities. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, the core problem here is not whether we apply it to other guidelines but simply that you don't seem to understand what is and is not vandalism. With that in mind I'm removing your rollback tools. You may re-apply for them at any time. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:NAC is very simple: non-admins close only very uncontentious deletion debates. If you feel you need to post something like this to explain your close, then it probably isn't something you should do a non-admin closure on. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sue, the bottom line is that our policies give administrators discretion in closing XfDs that the policies don't give to non-admins. This is because non-admins have not been community-vetted as far as their abilities to do things like close discussions, and therefore policy lets them close only uncontentious discussions. If you feel that you're particularly competent at closing discussions, the proper thing to do is start an RFA so you can prove it to the community's satisfaction, not do continual end-runs around policy because you're personally 100% sure you're right. I usually think I'm right, too - and that's less because I always am than because, you know, I live in my head, so I tend to agree with things that come out of my head. Having been here a long time gives you no precedence over anyone else, and I would suggest you focus more on whether your choices match those the community wish non-admins to make than on whether you're more or less special, experienced, or powerful than someone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I will not re-apply for my rollback priveleges. Misplaced Pages will have to do without my anti-vandalism work...and I am through with this discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quick note, to settle a part of this -- NE Ent's reversal of Sue's NAC of the AfD in question had been opposed because he's not admin; I support the reversal of the close and would've done the same. I'm not voicing an opinion on how it should be closed, merely that it is a not a clear-cut case that would be eligible for a NAC. Salvidrim! ✉ 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

However, I strongly believe Sue is trying to help and will happily trout anyone who claims she's acting in bad faith. The only thing you can blame her for is trying to help too much. I strongly hope Sue will continue striving to help clerking AfDs, and I believe a topic ban is premature -- has anyone offered help or mentorship, first? Salvidrim! ✉ 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggested she's acting in bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear

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

Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been a problem for a while now and I'm surprised he hasn't come up earlier. He has a long history of inserting material that is unsourced, or is personal opinion and analysis, or which comes from well-known fringe sources which are rejected by the mainstream. For example, he has done a lot of editing of Rudolf Hess, partly inserting his own analysis, sometimes pushing the theory that the Hess at the Nuremberg trials was an imposter substituted by the allies. Pretty much everything he adds eventually gets rolled back. He marks every edit as minor (with occasional lapses), even though most of his additions are hundreds to thousands of characters long. He is not particularly communicative, and there are several attempts recorded on his talk page to dissuade him from his campaign of fringey editing, to which he hasn't replied. He has become particularly active of late. I don't know that a short-term block would get through to him but it would be nice not to have to revert everything he does. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, has already been given multiple warnings by Dianna NE Ent 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion from what I saw on the Hess article is that he's more interested in inserting a fringe conspiracy theory into the article than undertaking actual improvements to the page. He wants to contribute, but I am concerned, because he seems unable to identify and make use of reliable sources, choosing only the material that's the most far-fetched, and in Hess's case, most certainly incorrect. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If he had persisted in editing the Hess article in spite of the warnings, he might have been blocked at that point. But because he moved on elsewhere, he was not. But being disruptive over a number of articles rather than persisting in the one place is just as disruptive, maybe even more so, and it has allowed him to fly under the radar for some time. I'm not convinced it's severe enough to warrant a block at this point, but adding opinions (Diff of Rudolf Hess; note especially the very last sentence) and editorialising about the quality of the articles in the articles themselves certainly has to stop. I welcome him to this discussion and hope he is prepared to improve his editing skills. -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He has moved on to the Day of Deceit article from the Hess article, but the editing pattern has remained; should he further ignore the warnings given, from this point forward, I would say a block is in order. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's where he came onto my radar. Stennett's fringe theory book is an SPA magnet and has to be watched assiduously. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

...And he's just POV'd it again, adding positive reviews out of balance with the severely negative scholarly reception. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone uninvolved could assess whether the current problems warrant a block, that would be best. I feel I am involved, as the Hess article is my new project. My opinion as an involved editor is that the current behaviour warrants at least a temporary block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm uninvolved(I've also removed his conspiracy edits on Hess and other articles), but the user seems agenda driven, combative and unable to edit in a reasonable manner. I don't believe this editor is any benefit to the project. Dave Dial (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Binksternet needs to call 911 right away as he has obviously lost his mind is a pretty clear personal attack: Can an uninvolved admin please block? -- Dianna (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All right. I am not involved, but I have asked Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, about this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block, with no objection if anyone wants to try negotiation. My guess is that this editor is so devoted to his special POV that any negotiation with him won't be successful. He has been notified of this thread and has edited recently but has not responded here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block. This user doesn't understand or wish to follow basic content policy, and is causing widespread disruption. LK (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Done. Those ridiculous comments in Day of Deceit and the attack on poor Binksternet on the talk page are enough: editor is NOT HERE to build an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Bananas Monkey

User talk:Bananas Monkey is littered with admonitions not to engage in unilateral page moves, reflecting a contribution history where he has frequently moved pages with large numbers of incoming links to parenthetical titles, creating disambiguation pages of questionable utility in their place. Some of these moves have been reverted. I commented to this user about the mess created by such moves on his talk page, and he replied on mine that "Unfortunately, there may be too many pages with links to the article that I can't help not doing that"; he shortly thereafter engaged in another page move along those same lines. I do not seek a far-reaching sanction, but I think that this user should have his ability to move pages restricted until such time as he can show that he can handle this ability responsibly, by achieving consensus through the Misplaced Pages:Requested moves process. bd2412 T 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there really a technical way to restrict's an account ability to move pages, or are you proposing a community ban on the user moving pages? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You could use the abusefilter, but I suspect BD2412 means the latter. Prodego 06:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bananas Monkey has been warned, over and over, not to make page moves without discussion, period. And yet he continues to do so with no signs of stopping. He has also been blocked before (full disclosure, by me) for 24 hours for this, however he edits in fits and starts, and likely never even saw the block while it was in effect. Given his continual movings despite multiple final warnings - including one that came as the result of an AN/I discussion - I have blocked for a week. Perhaps this will cause them to realise the degree of disruption their unilateral, undiscussed moves are causing and cause improvement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed cleaning up archiving SNAFU at Talk:Medical uses of silver

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

A malformed archiving template caused the bot to create archives for every month, whereas the archives had just been arranged incrementally before, and the page is not nearly active enough to merit monthly archiving. Requesting deletion of all pages not of the form Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive # (basically all the month pages) at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Medical uses of silver under criterion G6. Intelligentsium 03:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on - discussing the best method of archiving on my talk page, don't delete just yet. Intelligentsium 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, resolved, refer to my original post for the pages needing deletion. Intelligentsium 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: we need an admin to perform speedy deletion on archives following the monthly scheme. We will be using incremental archiving instead. All the other stuff has been fixed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All done. Monthly archives can create an awful mess (slightly NSFW). Graham87 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky

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

User: Johnny Squeaky has been engaged in disruptive editing at Cornell University. He has been introducing non-neutral and unverifiable language into the article , failing to engage in discussion about his contributions, assuming bad faith of other editors , edit warring, labeling third-party editors' BRD reversions as vandalism , and accusing editors of sockpuppetry and stalking . Madcoverboy (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For what it's worth, I can support this claim of disruptive editing based on my own interactions with the editor. I usually do not include old edits, but their editing behavior and quality of interactions has not really changed at all over the past year. The editor has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on articles such as 40/40 Club (, , this revert after my urging a third opinion which was ignored, and Whisper Systems (,, ) Attempts to discuss matters on the editor's talk page are usually removed with claims from Johnny Squeaky that we are "stalking" or "harassing" or wikilawyering where there is no evidence for such a claim (). I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and forum to speak. I make my edits based on common sense. My edits are by-and-large without much to-do. This is as I like it. If there is any controversy with my edits, I encureage you to look at them with conservatism as an idea. Thank you, Johnny. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

I'm not sure what you mean with common sense, and the rest of this post here is pretty incomprehensible and not to the point. There is, however, some righteous to-do over your edits, your accusations of socking, your false claims of vandalism, your edit-warring, and your disruptive editing (failure to abide by consensus). I'm not a fan of civility blocks, but you're awfully close to reaching my limits. I have removed the puffy language from the article (puffy because it is deemed puffy by a consensus of editors on the talk page), and right here, right now you have the opportunity to apologize to ElKevbo about these ridiculous accusations of stalking and socking (and there was nothing objectionable about their choice of words--"now move on" is rude? suck it up), and to the other editors on the CU talk page for edit-warring with them over puffy language. Another admin might not look so kindly on those accusations of yours, which make editing articles and improving the project a drag rather than a joy. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, care to explain this, a revert of my revert of your revert of a valid edit? Drmies (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the content that I am reverting to is supported by valid references that are known to be acceptable to Misplaced Pages. Also, Drmies has a COI here, and should not be allowed, as an Admin, to use his Admin rights to level "punishment" at my account. Drmies seems quite "angry". His edit comments are very aggressive. He need to resist the urge to change Misplaced Pages articles based on personal feelings. One wonders if perhaps he is a Yale guy, or perhaps was rejected by Cornell, or maybe you he don’t like these “snooty” Ivy League schools? Whatever the case may be, the combination of his comments and his edits indicate a POV that may be inappropriate as the basis of edits on this article. As well, I’m thinking that eventually he will use your “Admin” rights to push your POV. This would be a clear COI, and not a particularly honest thing to do. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "using" my admin rights. I would have blocked you already for your personal attacks and your accusation against ElKevbo of socking. Your conspiracy theory is ridiculous: you said you're from Oregon--well, maybe you're pissed at me because Auburn beat Oregon in the 2011 BCS National Championship Game? Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had it with Johnny Squeaky. They reinstated the "boosterism" again, though there is a clear consensus on the article talk page (4 to 1, now 5 to 1) that it should be removed. Please see the talk page. I would like to ask another admin to look into this: I'm a bit involved with the article right now (on a side note, it sucks--it's twice as big as it ought to be (see Harvard University, for instance), and sections will need to be split off or, if there is a main article, seriously condensed). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note Johnny Squeaky has been blocked by BWilkins. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  After this, maybe talk page access should be removed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  He's been warned that if he does it again, no talk page for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Revdel needed for malicious link

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

Back in December a discussion took place at AN that arrived at the decision to remove the URL from Silk Road (marketplace). For research purposes (seriously, I'm writing a paper on it - the only drug I take is cannabis and where I live it might as well be legal) I needed a link to it so I went to the history for it and found this diff. Unfortunately this is a phishing operation. The real address is a few revisions back and the first thing you'd notice is that the real site doesn't ask for a PIN. Since I didn't have a PIN I just typed in some random numbers and luckily I got a form submission error that showed me it's redirecting to a non onion site owned by a named individual who is not the owner of Silkroad. Point being, people who look in the history for the URL are likely going to get scammed, although based on the specific error I got it's also possible that the scammer's account has been deleted. The account which added the link has already been blocked as a sock so nothing to see there. Thanks. Sædon 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed them from the history; I'd appreciate another admin checking. Now, can I get a hit off your weed? Drmies (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. I didn't even notice there was more than one, and now I've found one more here. *Passes Drmies the bong* Sædon 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes...I'll put the blunt down just for a second. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cantaloupe2, assuming bad faith, Wikistalking, misinterpreting policies

User:Cantaloupe2 has recently decided to Wikistalk me and remove a large amount of content that I have added based on misinterpretation of policies and fringe theories on policies that he conceived himself. After disagreeing with me on my talk page, the user decided to head off to iPad (4th generation) and remove a large amount of content that I have added and claim that it violates policies by cherry picking bits of information and rewording perfectly fine sentence to suit his "writing style". 1 User is currently misinterpreting the WP:CLAIM policy and removing every single instance of the word even though the policy clearly states that care should be taken, not remove upon first sight. Similarly, he cherrypicked information on the iPhone 5 article and claims that I'm misinterpreting the matter or that what I've written wasn't in the source when it undoubtedly is. Latest example of this is in this edit 1. This matter has been occurring for four months now and frankly I'm sick of this user altering or removing everything I insert into articles when there isn't a problem with it. More example of this user's disruptive behaviour includes not assuming good faith, an example of which includes the user claiming that I've vandalised an article when I clearly removed copyedited content by accident.

• Talk:iPhone 5#stock prices - User believes a claim isn't represented in the reference when it is.
• User claims I vandalised when I clearly made a good faith mistake
• Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Bias in wording Claims I'm deliberately playing a cat and mouse game by replacing the word ass with arse, neither are offensive in my opinion but Cantaloupe begs to differ.
• User is now claiming that I'm deliberately adding bias information when I'm trying to portray the information as neutral as I can. See my talk page for more details on that.
• Uncountable number of times when he removed content based on his misinterpretation of policy
• Claims what I wrote is interpretative when it clearly isn't. 1
• I understand this verges on assuming bad faith but I'm almost certain that the Cantaloupe2 is attempting to sabotage my GA nominations. The user made extremely controversial edits right after a reviewer committed him/herself to assessing the article and after showing no signs of further contributing to the article for several weeks. Edits that this user made after a reviewer committed themselves include removing large amounts of information that was unsuccessfully discussed before the issue became stale as Cantaloupe decided not to respond to the latest comments/replies. Article was stable for weeks before Cantaloupe returnedAgain article was stable for about a week and a half before Cantaloupe returned to make more controversial edits that affected the stability of the article, many of the issues that were raised by him then, could have been put forth weeks or even months ago yet Cantaloupe brought it up at the last minute.

Honestly, I don't want to discuss matters with this user on talk pages as it will take weeks or even months to finalise as evident on the iPhone 5 article. User also seems to have a battleground mentality, once he is unable to support his claims any further, he will move on to using other tactics to get the content removed, clearly indicating he wants to win an argument for the sake of it. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#iFitit YuMaNuMa 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been voiced by another editor that he/she felt you were unwilling to allow your version to get changed. I think that YumaNuma has a territorial mentality on articles as if they're his articles, in particular iPad and iPhone products. Here is the concern.

Overlapping article contributio as "Wikistalking" is a poor accusation.

this edit is WP:UNCIVIL, because

is personal attack.

Typically this user competes against my edit until a third editor comes along and specifically acknowledge agreement with my edit.

He continues to exhibit edit warring tendencies.

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3

my first revert

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in the past, I have the right to defend content that I have added, and in most cases the most stable version should be retain as per the BRD; You boldly remove content, I revert and provide a reason, you're expected to discuss it before making further changes. Actually, to this date, no one has fully agreed with your changes on the iPhone 5 article, generally we were able to reach an agreement by coming to a compromise. Also it appears that I'm not the only one who has an issue with you removing content that's supported by valid sources, you have been to ANI five times in the past and brought to RSN a countless number of times for your interpretation of policies and controversial ideas of what constitutes a reliable source. It's interesting how you cited a sockpuppet as evidence for my alleged edit warring behaviour, using his old account, that user had a lengthy debate with me on the iPad (3rd generation) article, hence it's obvious that he has some remaining bias against me. A detail account of what happened can be found in his sockpuppetry investigation. 1 Despite this ongoing ANI case, the Cantaloupe is now attempting to use the 3RR to his advantage by once again reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page. YuMaNuMa 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (In regards to Cantaloupe's revision to his comment)It must be a huge coincidence that 15 minutes after you commented on my talk page, you made huge edits to an article that was listed on my user page - assuming that you spent time reading the article, the timing is perfect, hence my accusation is appropriate. Furthermore this user has been accused of WikiStalking other editors, an example of which includes User:M0rphzone who came to my talk looking for assistance after Cantaloupe2 Wikistalked him across several articles. YuMaNuMa 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut your snark with addressing me "the Cantaloupe". "fully agree" is also known as "unanimous" and it is not a requisite, because we work by consensus. WP:BRD you cite is only an ESSAY. Interesting you keep track of how many times I go to noticeboards. Perhaps you're the one following me around huh? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, address your snark with cutting the cantaloupe. The debate could turn into a melon-drama. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY. (Whoops, WP:ATA is only an essay too...) Just because it's "only an ESSAY" (and please don't shout like that, it doesn't help your case) is irrelevant when it's well-established process. Also, "fully agree" =/= "unanimous". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They agreed to a compromise, not with your actual edit. (Sorry for the confusion but by fully agreed, I meant that no editor has agreed with the alterations in your first bold edit and a compromised had to be reach) BRD is a widely accepted essay nonetheless, pointlessly claiming that an article that I have cited is an essay is not going to help your case, as you're clearly WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM with your most recent edits on the iPad 4 article. Furthermore your accusation is actually quite laughable, have you even read WP:HOUND? you should have because you've been accused of it a few time. To make things clear for you, knowing the past history of an editor does not constitute hounding, nor does monitoring the contributions of an editor without intervening. Sorry for referring to you as "The Cantaloupe", naturally I associate that word with a fruit not person - and no that was not a snarky comment, I seriously meant it. YuMaNuMa 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2 is becoming a problem across a number of unrelated articles, and all those other editors involved are finding much the same problems. Can those looking at this issue from outside please take a look broadly (the edit history is pretty narrow), not just at this one case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley's observation above. I have been a victim of Cantaloupe2 for about a month now where he has been WP:Hounding me in the well defined sense. I will be supplying diffs to demonstrate this later, when I have the time. Complaints to him have not resulted in any change of his WP:WikiLawyering battleground behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous complaint is this where I attempted to point out that after having his edits disputed Cantaloupe2 apears to pursue temper tantrum behaviour and attempts to flood articles with flags and edits to provoke the disagreeing editor, making the articles look amateurish and unreadable. here is an example in his edit history after locking horns with two different Candadian editors disagreeing with his edits. He has been told repeatedly by many editors that he is not WP:COMPETENT in many of the subjects he edits and inserts nonsense. Here is another article where he hounds another editor each edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not leave out assumption of bad faith accusation of "genocide" in the ANI title which another editor had to edit. You also inappropriately accused me of canvassing and directed me to not inform another user that he was being discussed and you labeled him "hostile user", which is highly contentious and such disparaging reference constitutes personal attack. And at this point, you're leaving notes on others talk pages which contradicts your own contention. What about your public repository of various contentions against various editors on your wiki talk page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheldon Brown, please explain why you're providing a 2006 diff. Following around interrelated articles by see alsos/external links is not even remotely relevant to WP:HOUND. It is correct that I do follow things around by topic. Your contention that I am following around by the editor is unsubstantiated. Topical following is perfectly legitimate.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the 2006 diff is just a mistake. Perhaps he meant this, this, or this. Just guessing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound melodramatic but as indicated above, Cantaloupe has intimidated many users through his irrelevant use and misinterpretation of policies. Also as above, he has hounded numerous editors and has been brought to ANI time and time again for it. As evident in his latest behaviour, he has clearly not learnt his lesson and continues to persist in conducting his poor behaviour. All he probably has learnt is how to get around the policies and how to intimidate other by citing policies that are not relevant to his case. I've lost count of how many times Cantaloupe used WP:NPA or {{WP:INCIVIL]] to get his point across instead of arguing the pertinent issue. Personally I resisted reporting him as I thought he would actually learn from his lessons and "act more moderate", however that clearly isn't the case. Cantaloupe wikistalking me was the last straw. YuMaNuMa 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is used in reference to support your contention that I'm "misinterpreting policies" ? is it your interpretation or an establish community consensus? Please link the latter. If it's the former, its merely differences in opinion and the accusation of misinterpretation is a cheap jab. In the "ass" "arse" game, you striking out the English variant and replacing with British variant can be construed as disruptive inflammatory editing and you're encouraging combative editing with uncivil, hostile personally directed edit comment saying my edits are delusional.

Fact: You and I edited the article iPhone 5. I have also edited an article or two on iPads, which are all devices from Apple running iOS, topical relations. You contend that I'm following you. From the way you responded during GA process for iPhone 5, it comes across to me as these are YOUR articles that YOU own. Saying that I happen to edit in two similar topic articles is stalking is contentious presumption of hounding. Please demonstrate your accusation that I'm following you by your edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More recently you're removing every instance of the word "claim" even though the policy clearly says that the word should be used with care, not remove it upon first sight, this applies to other MoS guidelines as well. You removed content that isn't verify by scientific analysis and since that strategy has failed to assist you in removing content, you moved onto removing or tagging content that is anecdotal even though it's supported by reliable references and no policy states that anecdotal claims must be removed, it needs to be analysis on a case by case basis. According to RSN, and the iPhone 5 talk page, others disagreed with your opinions on what is considered a reliable source and stated that common sense is required when interpreting and analysing sources. To date, you have failed to explain or provide me with a reason why "cover their asses" is considered offensive to you, despite this I have apologised. I also requested an apology from you for devaluing my comment by saying I'm "spurting off", however I have yet to receive one. In regards to ownership of articles, I welcome contributions and copyedits as many have done before but when content is removed, I have the right to challenge it, I fail to see why you can't understand and distinguish that from ownership. You have had long track history of Wikistalking, so the benefit of the doubt cannot be applied here, you edited an article on my userpage that you have never edited before 15 minutes after posting a hostile comment on my talk page. If I didn't file an ANI complaint, you could have easily stalked me across several other articles. The only reason why you didn't wikistalk me earlier was because I solely focused on editing the iPhone 5 article and debating matters with you in Oct, Nov and the first half of Dec. What you were doing is clearly considered retribution and thus considered hounding. I have never seen you edit any iPad article apart from the iPad (4th generation) yesterday, I've also thoroughly checked the history of every iPad article and unless you were editing as a sock, you have never contributed to those article; lying is not looked upon favourably here. YuMaNuMa 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing some iOS related articles, and I branched out to iPad. I am not lying. You're making a false statement of fact that I'm lying and that is libelous. I'm certain that no personal attack does not allow you to make libelous claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, stop Wikilawyering, it is not impressing anyone and certainly does not help your case. Secondly, I've again spent time checking all 5 iPad articles and your name did not appear once apart from the ipad 4 article, which you edited yesterday - as mentioned; I've also taken the liberty of checking the articles' talk pages and unsurprisingly, your name didn't appear once. If anyone wants to confirm or verify my claims, please feel free to analyse iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation). YuMaNuMa 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:V

Please protect Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. See . Core policy pages should not have eight reverts in one day. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Had just done this before seeing this post. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues

A number of copy and paste addition where added to our article on Graves' disease a couple of years ago over a few dozen edits by a single editor as per here. On Jan 3rd, 2013 I reverted back to the last clean version of the article and left a note on this editors talk page. I than proceeded to fix a bunch of other issues. This editor has now returned and reverted all the new edits and restored the copy and pasted text. Than made a few adjustments to the wording. I am not convinced I found all the concerns and IMO think we should move forwards from were we where before the copyright violations. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Faster2010 potential serial subtle vandalism and sock puppetry

I have noticed many questionable, unexplained minor changes to information in articles such as:

• Changing the BloodRayne release date from the correct date of May 2003 for the Mac to September 18, 2007
  • I found this source confirming the correct date to be May 2003
• Changing the number of songs on this DDR game page from 122 to 124
  • I had to use Google to translate this page and confirm the correct number of songs to be 122.
• Changing the runtime of CyberWorld from 47 minutes to 50 minutes
  • Later reverted
• Changing the runtime for Armitage III

Looking at his talkpage many users have warning him for this behavior, and looking through some of his history I have seen many reversions telling him to stop adding unsourced material and original research. I see random edits such as this that are just sloppy.

Additionally I believe he may be a sock of User talk:Hugosworld92. Both users have an inordinate amount of speedy deletion and deleted articles notices on their talkpages, neither use edit summaries, both were inserting, back-to-back, unsourced material on Armitage III. Also she has been on for 3 years, but almost 99% of her edits are to articles almost nothing has been posted to chat or any other namespace. Both of them have multiple user warnings on their talkpages for removing material and adding unsourced material.

Additionally I believe he frequently vandalizes with different IP addresses:

IP 66.31.4.213

• Random prediction of future, something I have noticed as a pattern
  • This was an article created by Faster2010
• unexplained deletion of text
  • Also on an article Faster2010 was editing.

IP 71.37.18.96

• His only edit, deleted content right after Faster2010's edit got reverted

IP 76.170.226.19

• Deletion of cast members for Atlast Shrugged
• Deleted various releases for Romar Entertainment after an edit by Faster2010

I haven't bothered to link everything I'm seeing. I just continue to frequently find low quality, grammatically incorrect edits, sometimes randoms predictions, subtle changes to info about release dates, etc. Many have been reverted by other users. I would continue to post more examples but I must get to sleep, I will be back tomorrow.OakRunner (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to make some things clear, I am not affiliated with this user User talk:Faster2010. I did not create that account. Furthermore, I am a male. Around the time I began editing on Misplaced Pages, I was not aware of any of the rules for editing, since then I have many times to always cite my sources and claims and I have a tendency to make small corrections, but hey that's what you get for not double checking. I have no idea this happened, but I just want to make sure that I am not doing any sock puppet activity. As I have said, I only have this account and I am not responsible for these actions. Hugosworld92 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be throwing around spurious accusations, and apologize if that is what I have done here. I've become a little paranoid so please forgive me for the hasty conclusion. I'm just trying to bring User:Faster2010 into some sort of discussion so we can decide what to do here.OakRunner (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noted some strange behavior from this user as well, over the months and years. Here's a non-thorough picking through of some contributions.

• Addition of uncited speculation:
  • Kratos in "KoFXIV"
• Weird redirects:
  • Creating and repeatedly redirecting "Winx Club Hybrid" to "Mortal Kombat"
  • "Street Fight" redirect to "Digimon"
  • Joke redirect "Call of Duty: Modern Flame War 3"
  • "Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin" another joke rd
• Insertions of links to Faster (2010 film) in inappropriate places:
  • Template:.hack
  • Can't seem to find any more but I distinctly remember at least a few more occurrences in my interactions with this user (which is what initially set the flag off for me as a potential stealth vandal/SPA advertiser).

That's all I have time for, for now. Troublesome. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with Faster2010 before at some point and have been involved in removing unsourced and dubious content as well. Looks like this has become a major problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I found you reverting him on a few occasions. He has become a problem due to the particular difficulty of noticing some of his factual mistakes and correcting them. In the DDR example above, his edit stood for several months until I reverted it, and I had to go to a Japanese source to find the correct amount. I find it had to accept honest mistakes being the motivation behind his edits since he appears to be changing release dates, and other random bits of information just randomly, and these mistakes are ultimately very difficult to pick out.OakRunner (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Liefting's imposition on WikiProject Philosophy

User:Alan Liefting has proposed to delete a template that is used for WikiProject Philosophy's talk page. This template was constructed and amended with the input of the members of WP:PHILO, of which Alan is not one. He did not see fit to bring the issue up on the talk page itself, but rather is attempting to involve the wider community first. Alan has been making these types of proposals that affect the area of philosophy, and has had mixed results depending on the political climate for each. This is a formal written request that Alan, and any other person who wishes to make such proposals make them originally at WT:PHILO. His current proposal interferes with the discussion itself, and I am posting this notice here at ANI publicly and conspicuously that I will be removing it myself for cause. I realize that this is strictly speaking not how it is done, and thatis why I am making this post to ANI. If Alan, or anyone else would like to make the same proposal again please do so in a manner that is respectful of the groups which it affects by bring it up at the talk page of the group first. Greg Bard (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to consult with a project before tagging a template for discussion; the reason a tag is used is so that it will pop up on the watchlists of concerned editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, so let me get this right. You are saying you're going to close a deletion discussion for a page that you self-admittedly strongly want to keep because you don't like that it was been nominated for deletion? KTC (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." NE Ent 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For further application of this broad-consensus rule, see Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the template states that "this page is being considered for deletion" and it shows up on the talk page. This is direct interference with the discussion. If you were a new editor wanting to bring up an issue, would you post it given such a notice. This is a serious and compelling reason to handle this proposal some other way, which I have invited his to do. Greg Bard (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregbard's sense of ownership over pages he considers philosophy-related is high-handed and excessive. I haven't had the time yet to deal with his persistent and from what I can see erroneous tagging of certain articles as relating to fundamentalism, but his behavior in this Cfd was objectionable enough to draw comment from the closer. It's ironic that Liefting's proposal so far is having no takers but the notion that GB should dare to close that discussion is so plainly wrong as to make we wonder what they are teaching in philosophy departments these days. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the very reason he is so insistent that the notice be removed from the template is evidence for the merger of the template back into the page. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea ... but that's a limitation of the template, not a reason to prematurely close a Mfd. NE Ent 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gregbard, you're not going to close that discussion, but let it go. ... Maybe this should be merged into the one page it is transcluded on, as is suggested by Alan. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's only used on one page, and is considered useful by those who use it, why does Liefting demand its deletion? Wouldn't it make more sense to bring up the matter on the talk page on which it appears? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The template is interfering with the discussion. That is a serious and compelling reason. My claim is that I absolutely have every right to address the issue somehow. Perhaps I will replace it with a temporary template until the discussion is over. I am open to other ideas. However it is unacceptable as it currently is. Greg Bard (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That addendum to the template makes it look like the talk page itself is up for deletion. The problem should go away on its own, as Leifting has no valid reason to delete the template, and there isn't any support for deleting. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as a pragmatic matter, you may be right. It just so happens that the support is to keep it overwhelmingly. But what if it wasn't that way, and the discussion dragged on forever? Are you telling me, I would have no recourse to do anything about it?! If I went to the to the top of this page and proposed to delete {{Noticeboard links}} just because I didn't like how it looks, that discussion would be closed down immediately. I brought this issue to ANI before taking any action in good faith, and , and all I got was a lot of attitude (not from you BB). Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra fixed it with <noinclude> tags. NE Ent 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I really was wanting to address.Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we discuss Categories, Articles, Templates, but delete Files and Miscellaneous. For me, this MfD is more up for discussion (as a candidate for subst-ing). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 13:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tradition! -- or, for the video version Tradition!NE Ent 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just have a question on using noinclude tags to hide the deletion discussion information. While it doesn't matter too much now because keep votes are unanimous, aren't people from WikiProject Philosophy the ones who would be most interested in knowing the template was up for deletion? I'm not sure that using noinclude tags in the future would be a great idea. Ryan Vesey 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Another TungstenCarbide sock

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

User:టంగ్స్టన్ కార్బైడ్ (translate the name). Please block. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, quack much? Blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What language is that? GiantSnowman 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Telugu. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Backlog of protected edit requests

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests has a backlog, modest in number, but in some cases over a week old. Could one or more admins take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They're all requested edits to templates or MediaWiki pages, and I understand the reluctance of admins to dive into generally complex code. I myself am not intimately familiar with it all (yet!) and am still learning, but I'll still try to help out with the requests. There's no better way to learn! :) Salvidrim! ✉ 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend discussing an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough

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

Explanation of the problem - User:Fram is a well respected Admin with years of experience on Wiki however his conduct in interacting with User:Rich Farmbrough has escalated way beyond that of his role as an admin.

Fram does not like Rich or his edits and has continued to follow and harass Rich and has been trying to get Rich banned from Misplaced Pages for the last 2 years. This crusade to get his pound of flesh has been going on since way before Rich had a restriction and needs to stop. Multiple editors in multiple discussions on multiple venues have asked Fram to back away but he has vehemently refused. These have occurred on his talk page, on Rich's talk page, at ANI and on Rich's Arbcom discussion. Fram routinely picks through Rich's edits looking for something to submit, there is no other explaination for how he could find some of these obscure topics Rich has worked on.

Additionally, when editors disagree with Fram he bullies them to the point where they stop commenting on discussions because otherwise he follows them too. One example is here where he commented to a user about their comments in this discussion but he has bullied many others who have sided with Rich including me, Magioladitis and others. This needs to stop.

Recommended action - I would like to ask for an interaction ban to be placed on User:Fram regarding his conduct with User:Rich Farmbrough. If Rich is such a problem then other admins and users can and will bring it up. Misplaced Pages has no shortage of editors who are willing to notify the proper authorities of problems. Fram doesn't need to be the hall monitor.Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose all i-bans in principle anyways, but in this case this oppose is quite firm. What we have here is an admin doing their due diligence regarding a long-term disruptive user, and one cannot expect 100% sainthood when having to deal with such a user or their cheerleading section. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• With respect Tarc, Rich is not a disruptive editor, I am not a cheerleader (I'm much to old and fat but maybe for the Redskins :-)), I am not the only one who has asked Fram to back away and Fram is not, by far, the only editor/admin who can submit if Rich does something wrong. But yes to be honest this last submission claiming the use of Excel as automation was really pushing it for me. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note that Rich claims to only have used Excel to sort a table, I don't believe him and all the evidence points to him using a script or macro instead. This belongs at the AE discussion basically, but it is not true that I started an AE case because he used Excel, I started an AE case because he clearly used automation and screwed up big time. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough is the (now closed) case concerning this. Fram (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)I think the lengthy block log (with a precious few unblocks) and numerous Arb appearances belie the "not a disruptive editor" assertion. This will stop when Farmbrough is indef'ed for good. It's coming sooner or later, his wiki-personality is more "Betacommand malcontent" than "Malleus roguishness. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You have not provided one piece of evidence to support your claims of a vendetta. An admin., knowledgeable in a specific problematic area, aware of the case history and willing to provoke personal criticism by bringing stuff to attention through the proper channels, I would expect no less from any Admin. That Fram is willing to do it when others are not might say more about their unwillingness to get involved that it says about Fram. This is a horse that will not run and you should get off Fram's case with your personal attacks such as this . Leaky Caldron 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• No problem I'll go dig through the hundreds of discussions for some links. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The essential point that you appears to wish to avoid is that RF would have ended up in precisely the same place though his own actions, not through the actions of particular Admin. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would urge all editors to look at the single diff presented as evidence of me bullying editors "to the point where they stop commenting on discussions". I then would ask the same editors to take a look at the following: Kumioko claims: "That is an intimidation tactic plain and simple. That is telling the user I'm an admin so watch your back. Intended or otherwise that is the effect of that sort of notice." Does my post really have that effect? Fram (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here Fram is that you have hounded Rich incesently for years. You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich. Whenever Rich edits you always seem to be there. Enough is enough. Maybe I am not the right one to start this discussion and maybe I need to find some more evidence. The bottom line here is, as Leaky put it above, I am knowledgable about this matters at hand and I am bringing it up. The difference is that you are an admin so somehow your actions are justified but since I am just a regular editor I am "involved". These are just clever wordings to trick readers. The bottom line is you are bullying and harassing editors you don't like or feel threatened by and it needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich." ? I'ld like some diffs for this (I suppose you are referring to something else than the post at Zero's talk page here?). Fram (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. Explaining to another editor where they are factually wrong is not 'bullying'. There is no aggressive posture in that diff you linked to on Zero0000's talk page. 2. Pretty much every interaction by Fram & Rich is about the latter's use of automation. Given he is currently banned for two months and will still have that restriction when he returns, if he finally gets it, obeys it, and stops pushing the envelope - any interaction ban would be redundant. 3. Why dont you take it to ARBCOM like you threatened to at the Arbitration Enforcement discussion? Then you can make your case there for an amendment to the wording of the restrictions or placing an IB between the two. Bear in mind at the previous arbcom case no interaction ban was placed despite the same issues you claim are a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Because Arbcom is a waste of time. The process is crap. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course there's no evidence, there can't be any evidence, considering that AE just banned Rich on the basis of Fram's evidence. What this is about is that Kumioko is (for reasons I don't understand) pissed about the ban on RF and wants to get back at Fram for bringing to AE the evidence that Rich had broken his editing restrictions, which got him banned. But if Rich had followed his restrictions, there would have been no problem, so I don't know why Kumioko considers him to be be a cause celebre to get behind. I am pretty sure of this -- if Kumioko doesn't go about his business editing Misplaced Pages to improve the project, he's well on his way to being blocked himself fro being disruptive. (That's a prediction, not a threat - I'm not an admin and I can't block anyone, even thoose who are deserving of being blocked.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• AE banned Rich because Fram provided assumptions and Rich was honest enough to say he used Excel. Excel is not automation any more than Cut and pasting a URL is. Listen Ken, I am not disrupting anything. I am just trying to have a discussion about Fram's interactions with Rich. That's it. If you don't agree, fine. It has nothing to do about getting back at Fram. What I am a little pissed about is that Fram is allowed to follow every edit of an editor looking and searching for a way to get them banned completely who is trying their best to participate in the project. It also pisses me off that I am being made to look like the bad guy for bringing it up. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If a user stays within his editing restrictions, there will be no cause for banning. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict × x2) Reviewing RF talk page discussion it's clear Fram was aware of prior violations of the ArbCom restriction but let them slide under the what's best for Misplaced Pages gestalt. RF broke his restriction and admitted it; that's on him, not on Fram. NE Ent 12:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - A look at Farmbrough's repeated violation of editing restrictions is very telling. Following him around, if that's what Fram is doing, is probably necessary to protect wikipedia from a frequent restrictions-violating editor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me

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

An anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me calling me a "Turkish nationalist" and accusing me of making sockpuppets.

It seems that he somehow managed to delete some of the evidence above.

"his IP which "forgot" to sign its comment is probably a sock puppet of E4024 or DragonTiger to support their nationalistic POV."--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He is also constantly changing his IP

I am a serious contributor to wikipedia. I am not a (Turkish) nationalist or biased. It seems to me that they are the ones with nationalistic and biased edits.

Also this

He is accusing me of "pushing islamic and neo ottoman pov" you came and push your islamic and neo-ottoman POV. And E4024 is helping you with his sock puppet IPs.]--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are some of the IPs he is using:

2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268

2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941

2001:4CA0:2201:1:D9A:9802:5B67:94A3

- above comments added by DragonTiger23

Hey, I have no sock puppet IPs. (Nor IP sock puppets :-) You have begun editing WP only today (21.01.2013) and only around one specific issue, if a "historical personality considered a national hero in Turkey" has had interest in same-sex relations! First of all I recommend you to stop being homophobic; it's the 21st Century! Secondly, do not accuse me of anything you are not capable of knowing. Thirdly, as you already know everything about WP (well, almost everything :-) you should know that if you suspect I abuse sock puppets you should ask an SPI about me. (Interested admins: You can realise a checkuser on me, openly or not; no problem. Should the result be negative I believe this IP newcomer should be given a good warning so that they would come back with a better attitude.) --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He also accuses me of making non-neutral edits, while in fact the only thing I did was adding the criticism of WELL-KNOWN TURKISH HISTORIANS on Babiners assertions from an article of one of Turkey's most known newspapers Zaman (newspaper). In his version he presents as if Babingers assertion was a fact, while the only thing I did was changing the sentence to : Babinger asserted....DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this - comment probably added by DragonTiger (not going to even look)

It is not forbidden to be anonymous. And it is you who reverts Edits and edit-wars against several users. Stop that, thanks. I nver said that you are a turkish nationalist but your edit is not neutral. Use reliable sources and stop trolling by inverting your personal point of view in other's articles. DragonTiger i also noticed that your English isn't quite good. Please stop ignoring answers of other users and just ANSWER correst.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And my friend, it is not forbidden to use IPs.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You did personally attack me. See links above It seems to me that you are constantly changing your IP to bypass potential block/IP banDragonTiger23 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, i didn't. See my explanations. Are the changes made by you the "spectrum of mainstream" then? We reached consensus above and now you are coming and changing it without any real explanation. Please read the Discussions and look at your edits.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE ADMINS??? PROBLEM ABOVE IS STILL NOT DEALT WITH!DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is a mess, and DragonTiger, it's largely your fault for not signing your posts and scattershot adding of comments. Also, don't shout at anyone here (use of all caps). There's enough drama on this board without that kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, DragonTiger and the IP are both hurling insults at each other and edit-warring as well. And I see no basis for the accusation of sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't insult anyone. The only reason I wrote it in capitals was because after some hours still not one single admin responded. I understand that admins are busy. I didn't do sockpuppetry, in fact the IP who is constantly using different IPs is sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Go to the history of the article to see what the dispute is about.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sockpuppetry because 1 - he/she isn't using it for vote-stacking or evasion of sanctions, and 2 - IPv6 addresses like these are often determined by stateless autoconfiguration, which means they are subject to change even more quickly than most IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to respond nicely to YELLING IN ALL CAPITALS, are we? You say he's calling you a "Turkish nationalist" - wow, is that considered to be an insult? The edit summary "the only ones who agreed were you and two other turkish nationalists" may or may not be calling you one - depending how you parse it. Nevertheless, it's not overly blockable - uncivil maybe, but not blockable. Accusing you of being a sockpuppet without having the guts to file an WP:SPI report is uncivil, but again, not blockable. Realistically, although you claim to be editing with a neutral point of view, I do see some tinges of non-NPOV overall, so his comments may appear to be valid in-face, based on what I read. That does not excuse incivility, but again, the level of incivility is not blockable yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article was recently locked by User:Favonian for a week. Because the dispute continued after expiration of the lock, I've locked it again, this time for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

IP harassment

This IP is harassing me for days now. Knows all about my user account. It could be the guy that got his user account blocked because of me.

, , .

I doubt he will stop even if this IP is blocked. But it's annoying considering he is doing this every month for few days in a row, writing on other users' talk pages about me etc. --Wüstenfuchs 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an admin to read my talk page where IP want's my account blocked at any cost and represents himself as a "legion" that "doesn't forgive or forget." --Wüstenfuchs 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page protection. Blackmane (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours for this edit: it is unacceptable. I've also reverted them on Flag of Syria where they falsely claimed a talk page consensus. On that note, a talk page consensus is necessary for that issue: there is some talk in the archive of that talk page but it is old and didn't really lead anywhere. An RfC might be an option though, of course, the situation is in flux--however, that shouldn't mean that a temporary agreement cannot be reached. If I remember correctly there was a suggestion in the archive that a second flag could be mentioned but not in the infobox, a suggestion that sounded reasonable and had some support. I am not prepared to protect Wustenfuchs's talk page yet, and I note (WP:BOOMERANG invites research) that Wustenfuchs has a habit of edit-warring, a habit they would do well to get rid of once and for all. Let's see what the future brings re:IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blackmane: This isn't vandalism, and it doesn't meet the recommended criteria for protection on WP:SEMI. Additionally, Wüstenfuchs, you're talking about two different IPs. They're close enough that there's a good chance they're the same person, but they are nevertheless different. 92.40.254.14 has been blocked by Drmies for harassment already. That's the "We are legion" kid. 92.40.254.201 has not been blocked, and he was the one in the second and third diffs you linked. Just seemed worth mentioning. —Rutebega (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Both 92.40.254.201 and 92.40.254.14 are from the same range: 92.40.252.0/22 (geolocates to London). Some ISPs assign a new IP every time the subscriber logs on. Another possibility is the person is editing from a mobile device and is assigned a new IP every time they enter the range of a new cell phone tower. This tool can be used to calculate ranges. -- Dianna (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Wüstenfuchs, I will add your userpage to my watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rutebaga, I blocked the most recent one. It makes little sense to block the earlier ones, as Dianna's comment suggests it's outdated. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that (IP addresses and how they work mystify me frequently) but I guess now I know. The WHOIS says it's a "mobile broadband service," so I bet it's somebody on a smartphone. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh, they're back at Flag of Syria; I've reverted and semi-protected for a month. Who knows what flag flies over Damascus then. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

The long-running problems at our article on the Aspartame controversy have arisen again, with two anti-Aspartame editors apparently tag-teaming on the talk page in an effort to force changes to the article against policy and consensus. After a thread was started by User:Arydberg which (falsely) claimed that an article in the Mail On Sunday stated that Aspartame caused birth defects, User: Immortale stepped in to repeat the claims - multiple times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out that (a) the Mail on Sunday wasn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, (b) the paper referred to was a single (and very equivocal) primary source, and therefore not admissible per WP:MEDRS, and (c) that the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming. As the thread shows , Immortale in particular has persisted with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Tendentious editing tactics ad nauseam, including an attempt (after WP:MEDRS had repeatedly been referred to) to cite Fox News as a "fair and balanced source" for material to support the claims: On this basis alone, I think that there might be grounds for calling for a topic ban on Immortale, if not a block per WP:COMPETENCE, given an evident inability to comprehend policy (or sources), or possibly an inability to comprehend that it applies to everyone. However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors, alleging that "a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax", and alleging that editors are involved in spreading 'propaganda' on behalf of Aspartame manufacturers. This comment seems clear evidence to me that Immortale is incapable of complying with talk page guidelines, and is using the talk page as a soapbox. On this basis, I suggest that User:Immortale should be topic banned from any any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, since they are clearly incapable of complying with the Misplaced Pages policies they have repeatedly been made aware of, and are instead intent on abusing Misplaced Pages as a platform for their own ends. I note that this is not the first time that Immortale's behaviour relating to this matter has been drawn to the attention of this noticeboard, and that Immortale has been both blocked and topic banned under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (for four months, in February 2011) regarding the matter, and frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite tired of having to prove I am not some kind of paid operative of the international aspartame conspiracy. . Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge them to prove they aren't a member of said conspiracy running a deep false flag operation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know this person but it is impossible to prove we are not connected. My opinion he is just one of dozens that have tried to change this article perhaps because they (like me) know people who's health has been destroyed by aspartame. All we ask is a chance to be heard. I will try not to repeat myself but it is hard when outright lies are accepted as truth. An example of this is the statement that "I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks"is not the same thing as aspartame" when aspartame is used in 90 percent of canned soda. , Arydberg (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't say Grumpy Andy is this and that. I said it was a real controversy and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame. We are to report the mainstream media, so why would Fox News not be a valid source when it's clearly a large news channel. I dislike Fox News, but it's not about me, but about the neutrality of the whole article. The controversy is taken serious in the mainstream media and the scientific community. Otherwise, why keep pumping millions and millions of dollars and Euros in ongoing research if it was such a clear-cut case as it is stated in the current article. Shouldn't be an article called Controversy, be about the controversy? Why is it so hard to reach consensus about this? Immortale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame" is a personal attack. You are accusing editors of being corporate shills, as you have many other times. Please stop it. Shall I say this again? I have no connection to anyone who makes aspartame. I am tired of having to defend myself against such crap. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but it's your free choice to feel attacked. No one asked you to defend yourself because no one attacked you, Dbrodneck. If I have to list of what the editors are called who try to present a negative fact about Aspartame, then we are here for a while. I've had to deal with real accusations and personal attacks of tag-teaming, of having multiple accounts, and so on. I was cleared every time but it's not the right way of editing an article together. So I have been away for some time because no matter what rights I had given, a persistent group of pro-editors, hide behind their consensus and doesn't let anything "anti" in their way. By the way, some of the statements about me above are plain false. Immortale (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statements are "plain false"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are two editors who have been topic banned and blocked in the past and I would suggest an indefinite topic ban. It is disruptive to accuse other editors of conflict of interest on talk pages and to argue against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines there. TFD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about me (and I won't mention the false allegations of tag teaming and me not following wikipedia guidelines): "the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming." Where did I claim this? "However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors" I never made personal attacks. You did and do. "a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue" (ignoring your Freudian typo here)I always followed policy and always took my edits to Talk Page. You seem to project your frustration of Arydberg onto me, since your complaint is mostly about me, even though I only made 6 edits on the article and Talk page in the last 4 months. Not exactly "repeatedly", is it? And once again, the hostility I point out to you, is completely valid when you write in large bold letters AndyTheGrump "How many fucking times" in the Talk Page. There are many more examples of your hostility. So my suggestion is, to topic ban you for a couple of months, until you've cooled down. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

People are quite capable of reading the talk page discussion for themselves, and forming their own opinion - and when two 'contributors' are seemingly intent on adding the same material based on an entirely false section heading ('birth defects') nitpicking about which one used which exact words is entirely beside the point. And no, calling for editors who refuse to comply with policy to be blocked isn't a 'personal attack' - it would be impossible to block anyone if it was. As for topic bans for me, since mine isn't a single-purpose account, unlike yours , it wouldn't be of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am not one of the members of the corporate shill group, who are these members who have a COI, and why has this not been pursued? You know, it is possible that you Immortale are simply wrong. It may be because you have a disruptive case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend my time to fight for every edit or to bring people to boards. I did this in the beginning, several years ago, and I ALWAYS got my right from neutral editors, until someone reverted everything bluntly again. That's why I stopped editing but this is about the current case, and you have no case. Unfortunately the article is so biased now, that people who want to know more about the controversy, go to other sites. You can see this in various forums and the mainstream media. I've edited other articles, so stop with that accusation. This is about me making 6 edits in 4 months and getting this ridiculous hostile reception. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider view

I don't edit this article, so I evaluated the difference in citation shown in this diff. Having read the cited work, I do not see that the synthesis implied by Immortale is significant. The report does list three specific flaws, and it is reasonable for us to simply state that they were found rather than spell them out. We are not constrained to simply relating slight rewordings of the conclusion section of the report. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses 116.202.144.148, 116.202.125.149 indulges in vandalism

An unregistered user from IP address 116.202.144.148 indulges in vandalising wikipedia Kochi page which contains information about Kochi city, urban agglomeration, wider metropolitan area and suburbs. The user was warned that what he is doing is contrary to the content and purpose of the page. On being warned, the user threatens to change the whole page in order to suit his designs. To quote the reported user

"(Article is not about Kochi UA. but Kochi city There is another article on Kochi UA. If there are other irrelevant information, they should be deleted as well.)"

In order to avoid the three revert rule the reported user used another IP 116.202.125.149 and continued vandalism. Prathambhu (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Request Urgent Admin intervention to block the IPs and restore information on Kochi pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathambhu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody violated WP:3RR. You have both reverted the page one time. This just looks like assuming bad faith. Prathambhu created the first IP's talk page with a level 2 vandalism warning, which was inappropriate, then followed with vandalism level 3 8 minutes later, even though no further edits had taken place on Kochi. When the other user reverted the reversion under another IP (I think it's safe to assume they're the same person), Prathambhu gave both IPs level 4 warnings, then less than 30 minutes later, decided that wasn't enough, and took it straight to AN/I. No talk page discussion was ever opened, and this isn't even the first time Prathambhu has been involved in this exact content dispute; another editor wanted to make the same changes to the article back in 2009.

Content issues aside, the IP user tried to make several edits in good faith. Prathambhu, meanwhile, seems to have no concept of what vandalism actually means and how vandalism templates should be used. I would suggest he educate himself further, and perhaps consider expanding his scope a little more beyond Kochi and related articles. I don't think this warrants a block for anybody, as even Prathambhu didn't seem to be editing in bad faith, and doesn't appear to have been admonished for this behavior in the past. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False charge by Prathambhu. To quote the first paragraph of the Kochi page,

" The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region and is classified as a B-1 grade city by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".

I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,

"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,

"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി ; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."

So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. Kolenchery is a small town within a Panchayat which is outside the purview of both Kochi city, GCDA and Kochi metropolitan area. I didn't change the IP. I'm using a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive new user(s)

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

This afternoon, users Jude caird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Filippo campione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have vandalized the following pages as their only edits since the accounts were created:

• Soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Harris's antelope squirrel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wild boar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Grenade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP address 208.123.157.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalized Harris's antelope squirrel in a similar way. From the similarity of these edits and the short timeframe in which they occurred, all of these users may be the same person.

As I write this, all of the edits have been reverted. Jude caird has made 4 edits, Filippo campione 9 and the IP address 2. The users have not made any edits for a few hours but the accounts have been used for nothing other than disruption. Is a block appropriate? Dricherby (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the future, you may report vandalism-only user accounts at WP:AIV. As for the IP, they have not been warned yet; I've issued a warning and will watch them for the next little while. Thanks for the report! m.o.p 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma and the article Germans

Not sure were to turn - thus I am here. User:Gun Powder Ma has recently reverted a few times a consensus text at the article Germans. The overwhelming consensus at Talk:Germans#Article scope clearly indicates a broad consensus for the articles scope - that is an article that is all encompassing of the demographics of Germans citizens and world wide diaspora and not a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article. As a group on the page we have moved on from this point of contention to helping with the articles structure and content based on the new consensus. Looking for how to processed when one editor does not see what the rest see.Moxy (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a contents dispute which Moxy is, unfortunately, now trying to solve via admin action instead of engaging in discussion on talk page. Since 18 January I have been on talk page trying to discuss it to little avail.

The contents dispute evolved in three steps:

• First, I reverted the lead definition (This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential) after I found it unsourced per WP:reliable.
• Then Moxy added a source, Lowell Barrington. This source, however, does not back up the claim, as anybody with access to the source can quickly see, so I reverted it per WP:reliable.
• Now Moxy added another source, Joyce Marie Mushaben, which does back up the claim but does not provides the definition of German ethnicity, but rather of the German nationality law. This topic, however, is covered in a different article as the disambiguation says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law). What Moxy does is simply equating German ethnicity with German nationality law - again without proper sources.

While I am trying to discuss the issue on talk (still do), Moxy has been more busy to threaten me with ANI. This is a contents issue and I would like to see it addressed on talk page by Moxy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting confused you seem here to imply its referenced. As for talking actually it was I trying to talk to you about it first as see here even directing you to the conversation that you missed after your first revert - You then (without taking about it reverted again) - Then as seen here you seem to have implied again your not aware of the conversation that led to the changes (so you reverted again) and again I indicated were the conversation took place to no avail. What would you like us to do - your edit waring on a point that has been resolved by the group and is referenced? We have had along talk on the matter that you seem to refuse to recognize or even admit has happened. Have you taken the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope yet? Moxy (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't you please stop talking in terms of pluralis majestatis and start giving answers to straightforward questions related to contents? There is no WP policy which holds that consensus, even if it exists, overrules WP:reliable or WP:OR. You are currently defining German ethnicity exclusively on German citizenship. But ethnicity and citizenship, also certainly overlapping, are not congruent. For German citizenship we have a separate article, German nationality law. Your definition belongs there, at least in its claim to absoluteness. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to say - we had ref that covered Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal) but your removing them with the agreed text - Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. and Joyce Marie Mushaben (1 August 2008). The Changing Faces of Citizenship: Integration and Mobilization Among Ethnic Minorities in Germany. Berghahn Books. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-1-84545-453-1.. I can get more if you like.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus on the page that the definition should include both ethnicity and nationality - this means that we do not need any single source for the definition, but that we can write a broad decision combining several definitions. Reverting a clear RfC consensus as Gun Powder MA is doing is disruptive. It needs to stop.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ABBA vandal

The following was posted at the "Village Pump" –proposals. I transfer it here without comment as to its merits. ThanX. GenQuest 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My issue is concerning user 89.98.37.96, who has edited a clfew abba related articles so far, falsifying information, and heaviky poving it towards Agnethac(the blonde one). Layer editors to tone of the pages havent reverted the edits creatibg a bi of a mess. As i am not in a position to go through all the mess and fix up the damae, i request that someone here gives it a peak. I KNOW IS PROB NOT THE RIGHT FORUM BUT I COULDNT THINK OF WHERE ELSE TO GO AT THIS TIME. IN ADDITION TO THIS, I THINK TGE USER MUST BE EXPLAINED THE RUKES AND IF THIS PURSISTS HE MAY NEED TO BE BLOCKED. Thankyou for reading this :). (btw i only realised now that a lot of my comment was in capslock. Sorry abiut that. Its so hard to edit wikioedia when on ones phone.....)--Coin945 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An apparent attempt to smear minorities by systematic abuse of 'See also' sections.

For some time now, a small number of contributors have repeatedly added links to our articles on the Sydney gang rapes and Ashfield gang rapes (both incidents occurring in Australia in 2002 or earlier) to the 'see also' sections of our articles on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang (refering to much more recent events in the UK). After I deleted the Australian ones from the Rochdale article, with an edit summary of "no connection", User:Darkness Shines started a talk page discussion, with a partial quote from WP:SEEALSO, which omited the salient point: that 'The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.' I have asked Darkness Shines to provide a proper expolanation as to why these particular articles should be linked, but no answer has been provided. Given Darkness Shines' previous editing habits, and given the only evident link between these particular articles - that the offenders were from Muslim backgrounds - I can see no reason to assume these links were added unless with an intent to smear an ethnoreligious minority - a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Such behaviour is surely grounds for at minimum a topic ban - unless Darkness Shines can provide us with an explanation as to why, of all the Misplaced Pages articles concerning rape (see e.g. Category:Rape) these are deemed to be of so much significance.

I would also like an uninvolved third party to look into the issue of possible sockpuppetry as far as these edits are concerned - at least one editor involved (User:Micro Filter 750) appears to be an account used solely for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain how its not a content dispute?Did you tried to resolve the matter on talk page?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)(I am not talking about User:Micro Filter 750 that should probably be check-usered)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross violation of WP:NPOV is not a 'content dispute' - and yes, as I state above, I tried to address the issue on the article talk page, though DS refused to provide any explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ATG reached 3RR on this article today, I posted on the talk page before reverting him explaining why I felt these belong in the see also section. ATG responded but did not address my reasons for inclusion He then moves onto ignoring my first post and makes a personal attack in accusing me of trying to smear a minority. I tell him I do not care what he assumes and to address the substance of my first post His response, rather than discussing the content issue was Ok, see you at WP:ANI What we have here is an editor refusing to discuss, making personal attacks, edit warring and then coming to ANI to try and get his own way. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK then, give us a clear explanation as to why two articles relating to incidents in Australia in 2002 are of such particular relevance to articles concerning incidents in the UK some 6 or so years later. I asked for this, you refused to give any. So where is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem that is not the first time that ATG use this board for content dispute --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG is correct. The gang rapes in Australia have no connection with the ones in England, and the See also links appear to be only due to the Muslim background of both. Unless DS can explain how they are relevant (other than race), they should be deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not but this not place for discuss it.There are pretty clear WP:DR process that should be followed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I would echo GregJackP's question. Resolute 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, this is the correct place to discuss gross violations of WP:NPOV policy in regard to efforts to smear enthoreligious minorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy appears to be pointing to a behaviour problem: an editor trying to make a point about Muslims and rape. Does Darkness Shines have form for this sort of thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Obviously not, I have written many articles about rape, and I always adhere to NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact why would I have insisted on this edit remaining in an article if what ATG is trying to imply is even remotely true? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So where is your explanation for your adding the contested 'see also' links? If you have a legitimate reason, tell us what it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I already did, on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since that is demonstrably false - you have provided no explanation whatsoever as to why you insisted that those particular articles were of such significance, I think people can draw their own conclusions regarding your intent - and on your apparent contempt for appropriate standards of behaviour when asked here to explain your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Child grooming by people of Pakistani origin is a racially charged debate in the UK; there are often several fascist "protests" that claim to be against child grooming in concept (yet they're nowhere to be seen outside Television Centre...). It often enters the mainstream political sphere through people such as Jack Straw. Obviously, caution is advised. Sceptre 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I checked the discussed articles and the talk pages quickly, and apparently Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) did nothing wrong in my opinion. He is just linking analogous cases, which is the right thing to do per see also links. If someone disagrees with them being germane to the article, the dispute resolution process is that-a-way, starting from WP:3O. If Andy feels that there are different articles that should be included in addition or in alternative, he's better pointing them out. Viceversa, the insinuations by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) that Darkness Shines is trying to make a smear campaign look like serious personal attacks and gross violations of WP:AGF, instead, at least if this is the amount of proof he's giving of this "campaign", and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.--Cyclopia 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How are gang rapes in Australia more 'analagous' to the events in Rochdale or Derby than any of the multiple other articles on such incidents that could have been linked? Given that DS seems to have written much on the subject, one would assume that he would be at least aware of Category:Rape, and of the multiple other articles - including many relating to the UK (see Category:Rape in the United Kingdom) Instead, he links articles relating to Australia for no reason given - and refuses to explain why they are of such significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing a reason for including the links in the See also section. I'm also not sure about the diffs that you posted, for example, this diff indicates that the raped Muslim women may have been "complicit" in the attacks. Does that mean that they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped? And why were just the Muslim women "complicit"? The other articles all predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups, none of which go towards explaining the behavior issue being raised. Finally, the explanation on the article talk page is not satisfactory to answer the question on why the links are relevant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know how to read? "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during this period is well documented, with women also being complicit in these attacks." where do you get "they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped" from? And I should like you to post a diff from any of the other articles were I wrote Muslims are responsible for rapes. And how you get "predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups" from Rape in India and Rape in Jammu and Kashmir is beyond me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusing Greg of not knowing how to read seems pretty harsh. If you mean that there were women among the attackers or their accomplices, then say so. As it is, the only women you've otherwise specified are the victims, and that is unclear. I have no view on this dispute, except to observe that it is mostly a content dispute, and that the relatedness of items is not so self-evident that no source is ever required. But writing about rape and sexual abuse is hard; both draining on the writer, and difficult to get right with the appropriate balance of accuracy and sensitivity. It seems from the way you are engaging with one another on this topic that that is getting badly lost. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your correct, I have struck the offending comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: once again, Darkness Shines has refused to provide a specific explanation as to why the particular articles linked were of such significance, and is instead resorting to bluster in the hope that the issue will go away. . At this point, it seem only reasonable to assume that my initial supposition was correct, and this edit was made in an attempt to smear an ethnoreligious minority. Can I suggest that the discussion moves on to what particular sanctions are appropriate here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can suggest it, but no-one has to take you seriously. I see no sign of anything like consensus here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time ATG has violated AGF & NPA with his vile suggestions that I made this edit for reasons of race. I must insist these attacks be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have at no time suggested that your edits were motivated by race (religion seems to be the issue with you). Anyway, why did you make the edits? . AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm troubled by Darkness Shines's behaviour in this See also case. Contrary to Cyclopia's view, I can't see any reason to include those links other than to make a point about Muslims and rape. Can someone (Cyclopia, Darkness Shines?) explain to me what it is saying other than, "See, Muslims do this in Australia too" or perhaps, "Typical Muslim behaviour"? If that's not what's going on, if the purpose is to make some as yet unspecified point about the existence of gang rape elsewhere, can I suggest Darkness Shines uses gang rape articles that involve other ethnicities, so as not to inadvertently smear an ethnic group? There are probably a few gang rapes every day somewhere in the world. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please point me to the articles on gang rapes carried out by gangs over an extended period of time which got such massive attention? I will add them to the see also sections quite happily. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you're in danger of implying that there is something about Islam that makes them more likely to engage in gang rape? If so, does that concern you at all? Do you think it is in fact the case that Muslims are more likely to engage in this kind of behaviour than other religious groups? Is that what's going on here? And no, I'm not interested in editing that article. I'm interested in your behaviour. And could you please answer Andy's reasonable question? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. And I do not think any group is more likely to commit rape than any other group, that is a fucking hideous question to ask. And I have responded to andy's question. My response is on the article talk page and is linked to twice in this thread. Another response is directly above your post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have responded to Andy's question. You haven't explained what the point of the links is. I can't see any point other than those I mentioned. I see you do a bit of writing about Muslims. Do you have a particular view on Isalm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What troubles me about you is, it's been pointed out that putting those see also links at the bottom of those articles can be seen as, is in fact, making a case for "Typical Muslim behaviour". Far from rearing back in horror at that possibility and quickly removing the links, you're arguing to keep them there. Again, you're making the case for "See, this is what Muslims do." I was willing to believe it was inadvertant, but the longer this goes on, and the more you dig in your heels, the more I begin to believe that this is your intention all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks accusations of bigotry are going a bit far considering what's actually happened here? While Darkness Shines has not yet specified specifically why he believes the see also links are appropriate, I don't think it's reasonable to assume it's because he hates muslims. Is it possible that the events are related (if tangentially) because they had a similar effect on their respective communities, perhaps even in part due to the religion of the offenders? I imagine that in both circumstances, people were desperately trying disclose that the attackers were muslim without sounding racist. Perhaps the attacks heightened prejudice or discrimination in both areas. There are countless possible links between the articles that don't prove Darkness Shines hates islamic peoples, so why would you assume that just because Andy suggested it? I can't tell you exactly why Darkness wants the links there, only he can, and when he finally gets around to it, it had better be good. But in the meantime, let's keep this as civil as possible why don't we? —Rutebega (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the only one Rutebega. Firstly - given that ATG and anthonycole seem to want Darkness to answer 'content' questions, take those back to the article talkpage. Secondly - if ATG is going to seriously allege that DS is smearing a religion/minority by the use of see-also links, I dont know where to begin with that. Short of any actual diff to that effect, he should retract his comments as personal attacks. ATG seems to be the one making it about religion and minorities. All I see is DS linking other notable gang-rape articles. If you think that its (anti)religiously motivated, you need to put up evidence to that effect rather than dragging someone here and demanding they defend themselves. You asked a question, DS has answered. That you dont like the answer is not his fault, its reasonable under the circumstances and you can now choose to address it with good faith and work towards consensus on the talk page. The act of linking two articles that have similarities is not evidence in itself of non-npov editing. By its nature 'see also' sections are going to have common themes! 'Smearing minorities' is a serious accusation. It needs to be backed up with serious evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Darkness Shines has already explained his reasoning, that these were both high profile gang-rape cases that occurred over a lengthy period of time, and as he argues, that makes them tangentially related enough for the See Also section. The main issues brought up against him so far have been that both examples are of Muslims, and that neither example is geographically related, although Britain and Australia share many obvious socio-cultural similarities. Are there even any other examples that could be put into this See Also section that would be more relevant? Without any evidence that he is explicitly ignoring other notable gang-rape instances that occurred over long periods of time, or that his is singling out Muslims it is dubious to make a case of him trying to smear minorities.OakRunner (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG's worry was entirely legitimate considering the larger editing patterns of the editors in question. But unless we are talking about the larger edit patterns then this is a content issue. I would note that editors have been topic banned in the past for focusing on providing negative information about specific ethnic or religious groups.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Folks, this is an edit war over a "see also" section. I'd suggest that given BRD the addition should be reverted and then discussed on the talk page with the default to be to exclude the link. Given how obvious that step is for experienced Wikipedians, I'm a bit worried that there are some other issues here (personal, religious or whatever). Given this discussion I imagine there will be enough participation to get consensus. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. I note the additions are no longer in the articles; they should stay removed unless/until there is talkpage consensus (amd, frankly, a damn good reason) to include them. The addition of the Rochdale link is IMO seriously problematic; there's no real link between these gang rape articles and that article where the main issue was grooming for prostitution, apart from the religion of the perpetrators. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'content disputes. Can anyone explain how one is supposed to engage in a discussion regarding content with someone who refuses to state why they want particular content included? This is elementary stuff - disputes regarding Misplaced Pages content can only be resolved by consensus, after discussion. A user who refuses to state why material merits inclusion, but insists it should be included, is clearly not participating in any discussion in a meaningful way - and to let this continue without sanctions is to invite further obstructionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor says they are similar crimes, and therefore would belong in the see also section for tangential info. Oddly, you both seem to see similarities, just not focus on the same ones, so either you both agree there are enough similarities or that there are not, but that is a content dispute, and you get others involved for a consensus to break the impasse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be a 'content dispute' if an involved party refuses to state why particular content should be included, while insisting that it should. And no - I see no reason whatsoever why the Australian articles should be linked in the UK ones, or vice versa. Or at least, no reason compliant with WP:NPOV policy. Remember, this is not an isolated incident - multiple editors have attempted to link the two sets of articles, and at no time has any justification whatsoever been provided. If this was a 'content dispute', one would expect those who were in favour of the links to explain their actions, rather than engaging in a slow-motion edit war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

They do state why: "similar crimes." Similar crimes are often linked in the media, or in peoples minds, or in criminological study, so the question becomes is there enough there per rough consensus to put in See also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to say why these crimes in particular are more 'similar' than all the other possibilities. And no - no source has been offered suggesting that there are any links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss the other possibilities you mention there, in doing so, it is hoped you will reach a consensus on that. If the editor does not make his case, he does not make his case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to discuss anything. Nobody else has proposed anything. The links have been deleted. What am I supposed to be 'discussing'? And what has this got to do with the issue I raised here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who raised a question about how to deal with a content dispute, which pretty much everyone on this board sees this as. Because the diff you have provided shows a content dispute, that is the consensus on this board. If no one is now editing the article, than yes there is nothing you need to discuss there, and nothing more to discuss here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has already said why. Alan gets it, Oakrunner gets it, Rutebega gets it, I get it. We might not necessarily agree with his reasoning but we understand it is a reason. You asked, he answered. Repeatedly. You have admitted there are similarities which you seem to think fall foul of NPOV. Given that they are not his stated reason for including them, you are attempting to exclude content based on a reason for which he hasnt given. Content dispute. Go discuss that on the talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that if someone violates WP:NPOV, but won't say why, it should be treated as a content dispute? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that someone is violating WP:NPOV but not providing any evidence? Ridiculous... But should you come up with an argument, its a good thing we have a noticeboard for that where some experts can help you determine if there is an NPOV violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. WP:NPOVN can only function where both sides of a dispute are prepared to account for their actions. And yes - I've provided the evidence that DS has refused to explain why these links in particular are merited, and suggested why DS refuses to provide such an explanation. If I'm wrong, let DS explain why I'm wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOVN can only function when both people are engaging in discussion, so please stop side-stepping discussion with allegations of DS not participating and instead start engaging DS's argument. It's not a hard case to make, just argue that these articles aren't likely similar enough to be of interest to readers visiting them. Argue that the Sydney gang rape article is likely only of interest to people geographically related to the incident and that no particularly significant criminological similarities exist between the different gang rapes.OakRunner (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be a behaviour problem here. Has anyone looked at the edit-war only account that Andy pointed to? (I haven't.) Regardless of the fate of this thread, I'm going to take a look at this editor's history. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, very few contributions. Articles appear to be related to Islam. Looks like it encountered DS at the Rochdale article and then either followed/was followed. (DS has subsequently reverted a couple of its additions elsewhere. Make of that what you will) Doesnt ring any bells, but I am unfamiliar with sockmasters in the I/P/Islam area, so if anyone has an idea, better take it to SPI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean I'm looking at Darkness Shines. That red-linked edit-warrier doesn't seem very significant. I'm worried DS may be editing tendentiously. I've just looked at his history on one article though, and see no problems. This'll take some time and I wouldn't keep this thread open waiting for me.

I see we're now exchanging See also links between Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be some rhyme or reason while the articles are linked. Sadly (horribly), repeated gang rape is not a rarity , , .NE Ent 03:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like at least some others, I see no explanation at all in this oft-cited edit. "Gangs of men were attacking women" is hardly unique to the articles Darkness Shines is linking to, methinks. "Content dispute"--sure, but some content disputes are about content that maybe should be discussed here. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If further evidence of Darkness Shines' POV-pushing regarding this issue is required, I'd recommend looking at the history of our British Pakistanis article, where DS was one of several editors attempting to insert a large (3,427 character) section on the Rochdale gang into the article, with blatant disregard for weight, relevance, or neutrality. In fact, it appears that DS was amongst the first to raise allegations of 'Child sex abuse' in the article e.g. in this edit: Note that it was citing the U.S. Christian Broadcasting Network's 'terrorism' expert, and a notably anti-Pakistani India-based-source (somewhat confusingly named the Sunday Guardian - a confusion that DS did nothing to clear up) as sources for what was supposedly going on in Britain - hardly the best of sources, unless one is looking for hyperbole. This is the sort of editing that first made me question DS's neutrality - and I have seen nothing since to suggest that my initial suspicions of a clear bias against the British Pakistani community was incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your a liar, Henrik.karlstrom was blocked or accused of sockpuppetry when I did that revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right - someone made a false accusation of sockpuppetry, resulting in a block shortly followed by an unblock and an apology . I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you were amongst those responsible for inserting POV-pushing badly-sourced material into the British Pakistanis article though. Anyway, are you still claiming not to have a bias against the British Pakistani community? or is this another question you'd rather not answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fuck all against any community, and should you imply it one more time in your fucking smear campaign against me and I will delete every fucking post you have made those bullshit allegations in. This is not the first time you have attacked me in this manner, it most certainly will be the last. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang

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

Could somebody block User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang without the ability to edit their Talk page? RNealK (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You neglected to notify the user of this discussion, so I have done so in your stead. Not that it makes much difference with him being, you know, indeffed. —Rutebega (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• ,

Move without agreement or consensus

• , , ,

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• ,

Other disruptive edits

• , , (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), , ,

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like , , , , , , , , , and . That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request For Assistance WRXP and WRXP (FM) articles

It looks like User:RobDe68 has completely blanked out the entire article for WRXP and directs WRXP (FM) back to the blanked out WRXP page, then they put a request for a Speedy deletion of both pages. WRXP is a legitimate radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to 94.7FM in Newark, New Jersey and it was from 1964 until a few days ago known as WFME a religious broadcaster. It was recently acquired by Cumulus Media and flipped to a country format. I don't know what the heck is going on here but either User:RobDe68 is a vandal or if that is not the case they clearly don't know how to properly edit on Misplaced Pages. I would like to request that the previous WRXP/WFME page be restored and a repremand of caution be issued to User:RobDe68 for blanking out a legitimate and properly referenced Misplaced Pages article. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the proper maintenance is done, both WRXP and WFME (FM) articles will be as they were. The only difference is that the edit history will remain with the original station per WP:WPRS#Modifying_article_titles_for_stations_that_change_their_call_signs. Once a station changes its call sign the station's article is supposed to be moved to the new calls instead of starting a new page or moving station info to another page, which is what was done when the calls changed. I'd move them myself but you need an administrator once there is an edit made. Hope that clears it up. RobDe68 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The explanations seem a bit confused -- what exactly need to be moved where? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It does appear there has been some unfortunate attempts at cut and paste moves. E.g. . TheGoofyGolfer, please note that cut and paste moves is rarely the way to sort anything out in wikipedia due to our desire to preserve attribution history. If you need something moved and can't do so, ask an admin's help.

Having said that, while I understand RobDe68's desire to prevent cut and paste moves, I remain confused by some of their actions. I may be missing some stuff since the history is now rather confused, but what is the plan to do with WRXP itself? If it's supposed to be either a redirect to WRXP (FM) or if it's going to be a disambig page then I don't see any need to delete the current page at WRXP. (Unless there's an existing disambig page with sufficient history that you feel should be moved there.) If WRXP (FM) is going to go back to WRXP, I don't see why you moved WRXP to WRXP (FM) in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the edit history with the stations that changed call signs per the radio project link I provided. As to what moves where, I have the db-move template on WFME (FM) and WRXP pages saying what needs to be moved and why. I swear I've done this with a ton of call sign changes/swaps that weren't done properly before. RobDe68 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clear things up WDVY gets moved to WFME (FM) and WRXP-FM gets moved to WRXP, this will keep the edit history for each station somewhat intact. WRXP (FM) remains a redirect as that was the new page created when the call sign changed. Sorry this got so confusing. RobDe68 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, although as note below if you don't think there's any useful history at WRXP (FM) I wonder if just leaving it at WRXP and asking for it to deleted would have been simpler. And if there is useful history at WRXP (FM), perhaps a history merge would be. Either way as I said this isn't a big deal, simple a suggestion on a possible way to reduce further confusion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC with both RobDe68 and TheGoodyGolfer) You're right I partially missed the templates and then got confused by the similarity in names, sorry. However I'm still somewhat confused. As I said, I understand the desire to preserve the attribution history at the right place and I think I understand your desire on what to do with the main pages (those with the important history). In particular, I believe your plan is to move what's currently at WRXP-FM to WRXP and I understand that.

But I'm still a bit confused in particularly by your move of WRXP to WRXP (FM). What exactly is going to happen with what's currently/now at WRXP (FM)? This page was basically created recently (was a redirect prior) and I'm lazy to work out where the content came from but I'm guessing it's somewhere else. If you plan to have what's currently at WRXP (FM) deleted because there's no useful history there, that's okay if you're correct but it seems it would have reduced confusion to keep the page at WRXP and ask for deletion in situ then have what's currently WRXP-FM moved to WRXP. If you think there's some useful history at WRXP (FM) and want to preserve it for that reason, I wonder if a history merge might be more suitable. If you're just going to keep WRXP (FM) around as a redirect to WRXP not because you think it needs to be preserved I guess that's okay although again it seems it would have reduced confusion to just keep WRXP (FM) as WRXP, ask for it to be deleted and for WRXP-FM to be moved to WRXP and then create a new redirect at WRXP (FM) if needed.

To be clear, this isn't a major issue but if the move was unnecessary it would have been better not to do it, to reduce confusion in what's an already confused situation, even considering you weren't at fault.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think a history merge was possible because of concurrent edits and such. In the past the administrator moved the newly created page to the "XXXX (FM)" name to make way for the page move and kept it as a redirect to preserve the history. We made note of it on the main article's talk page. It seemed like there were too many edits on the new page to just delete it but I wasn't sure. Again sorry for the confusion. RobDe68 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and in the process you made a complete mess of an active article. IMHO before doing anything you should have opened up a discussion on the proper talkpage to gauge whether or not other Wikipedians feel that such action would be considered controversal or not. When a move or change of an article could be construde as controversal there are proceedures set in place. While I believe your actions were done in good faith you've caused IMHO a lot of headaches trying to straighten this out. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, reversing cut and paste moves is inherently non-controversial and does not need to be discussed first. As you say there are procedures in place for moves. But simply put, cut and paste moves is not one of them and needs to be reversed ASAP to avoid nasty article history problems, regardless of the good faith of the people carrying them out. It's possible RobDe68 has made things slightly more confusing, but the main confusion comes from those who attempted cut and paste moves in the first place, which even though were done in good faith, should never have been done and appears to include you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards