Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:43, 4 May 2013 editUseTheCommandLine (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,618 edits →Proposal: inclusion of Male privilege in Men's rights movement article probation status← Previous edit Revision as of 05:12, 4 May 2013 edit undoRgambord (talk | contribs)427 edits →Proposal: inclusion of Male privilege in Men's rights movement article probation statusNext edit →
Line 1,225: Line 1,225:


for reference, here is the ] which I found in the ] -- <span style="font-family:monospace"> ] ~/] ] # <span style="background-color:black">_</span> </span> 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC) for reference, here is the ] which I found in the ] -- <span style="font-family:monospace"> ] ~/] ] # <span style="background-color:black">_</span> </span> 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

:'''I was going to post this to the neutrality board, but it's more appropriate here, since UTCL has brought the matter to ANI. I apologize for the extremely long comment, but I have a lot to say.'''
:Let's clear up some misconceptions here. First off, I am not currently topic banned from any article as far as I am aware. There was a misunderstanding on Men's Rights Movement where I tried to clean up the talk page by merging multiple related section together; something went wrong, and the original sections I merged were not deleted, making duplicate sections. I noticed a few hours later and deleted the old sections, unknowingly deleting a new comment in the old sections. After that, I removed another user's comment on the same talk page (inserting text saying I had removed it for violation of WP:BDP), which violated WP:BDP (Calling a suicide victim a domestic terrorist as an insult). The person who's comment I had inadvertently deleted thought I was vandalizing the page, and asked why I deleted their comment; I assumed they were referring to the terrorist statement, and responded that I had removed it for WP:BPD violation. A series of miscommunications and misunderstandings later, and ] hastily topic banned me without taking the time to try to get to the bottom of what had actually happened. Yes, I was rude and I apologize for that; I thought I was responding to someone who was indignant on being chastised for labeling an ideological opponent a terrorist. Now, if we can continue with the rest of this nonsense?
:I am taking a break from wikipedia, especially the humanities (shudder), but I received an email notification, so that's why I'm here. UseTheCommandLine and I already argued over this page, and it already went to AN/I, and there seemed to be consensus that she was acting out of line and POV pushing. She got upset and decided to take a break, leaving this note on her talk page "I am tired of dealing with sexists and racists. I am taking an extended wikibreak. Perhaps it will be permanent.". I found it quite offensive, as it was clearly pointed at me. Here's the deal. I have been an editor on wikipedia for a very long time; this is a fairly new account. I have contributed quite a lot both logged in and as IP to various articles, mostly in history and science. Only within the last couple of months did I become aware of the extremely biased Feminism etc... pages on wikipedia, and I brought the same perspective I bring to all articles I edit in removing content that violates various clear wikipedia policies, as well as occasionally removing content that just plain old makes wikipedia into an unreliable encyclopedia (Per WP:IAR). I am by no means a perfect editor. I have always edited in good faith, and assumption that '''has not''' been granted to me by many editors on the feminism related pages, mostly because I am not a feminist, and don't adhere to or blindly accept any feminist beliefs without evidence. Neither am I an "MRA", racist, or sexist, as has been accused. I am simply one person who wants to see BETTER ARTICLES on wikipedia about this subject. I originally found out these articles because I was curious about their subjects, and then disgusted at the quality of information they provided.
:One feminist belief is the existence of Male Privilege. There are quite a few very intelligent, (dare I say experts? Why not -- their credentials are no better or worse than mainstream feminist scholars), who argue for the exact opposite. UTCL pushed to deny those sources be included, and to remove evidence of the disagreement before, and she is doing it again. I have argued before, and I will argue now, that we should either have a legitimate (non-stub) ] and ] (currently a redirect to ] -- almost a slap in the face, really), or one article entitled ]. Both are notable and completely contradictory points of view, and no editor is qualified to determine which one is correct or which one deserves to be the main title of the page. Imagine the outrage if I changed the name of the article to ], and just swapped the main article content and the criticism sections, changing a bit of the wording? I'd probably be banned for vandalism and POV pushing; but that sort of editing is perfectly accepted here if it's the other way around. There are other, similarly US and Feminism centric articles on wikipedia, such as ], and ]-- which hardly applies in places like: China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Religious privilege, in general? --Yes, that exists, I agree, and that's the scope an encyclopedic article should cover. Gender is no different. There are numerous examples of female privilege in our society, and they are backed by WP:RS.
:Finally, I posted in the ] talk page my intentions for the article, before being distracted by school work, and the mess over at ]. UTCL is aware of my intentions yet has avoided any attempts at consensus building, instead seeming to want to "protect" the previous state of the article before my arrival (which was absolutely abysmal and contained numerous unsourced paragraphs, as well as clear violations of WP:Synth/WP:OR). I don't believe that the article needs protection, something that should not just be doled out willy-nilly (This is the encyclopedia '''anyone''' can edit). I merely think that UTCL needs to have some mentoring, as mentioned in the previous AN/I topic, as well as possibly having her edits to ] placed under moderation or whatever it is they do here. Maybe then we can build consensus, like I tried to the first time around, instead of having constant edit wars. ] (]) 05:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:12, 4 May 2013

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Orlady

    I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

    I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Misplaced Pages consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

    In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Misplaced Pages:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

    A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

    B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Misplaced Pages, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

    C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

    D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

    E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

    F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.


    H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

    G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

    I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

    I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Misplaced Pages reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban.
    Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post ; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

    • Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
    • Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.
    • Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Misplaced Pages:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Alternate suggestion to above

    • Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:
    • a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:
    1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
    2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


    I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

    I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

    SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Misplaced Pages as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • comment Does it make any difference that Gredbard just so happens to be right? County government is an extension of the state government. Or does that matter? Just to use a bit of extreme hyperbole, I probably could find, if I tried hard enough, consensus that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Yet we all know the sun doesn't rise or set. The earth spins. It is simply our perception that leads us to believe the sun rises and sets. Same goes for county government. We perceive it one way, but in actuality it is an extension of state government in every state I know of.Redddbaron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No, when it goes this far it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If someone can point to an easily available reference where it can easily be seen that a particular side in a dispute is correct, then of course the community would prefer that right triumph. However, it is clear that this matter cannot be so readily resolved, and the collaborative approach would be to say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I know that in due course it will be seen that I'm right, but I see that consensus is against me, so I'll drop the whole matter." Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Admin abuse

    We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    "I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Misplaced Pages's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Misplaced Pages community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Misplaced Pages is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Misplaced Pages grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.
    'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.
    PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Misplaced Pages works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Response to the admin abuse claim

    Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

    • I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.
    I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)
    As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Misplaced Pages consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.
    The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.
    You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.
    • The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.
    Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?
    The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.
    I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Misplaced Pages. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Misplaced Pages consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.
    As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Misplaced Pages because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.
    People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Misplaced Pages. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.
    We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.
    When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.
    The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Misplaced Pages, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page after being requested not to . That "defer" diff ? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Misplaced Pages:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Of potential additional relevance

    I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    My recommendation and final comments

    OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

    In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

    On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

    To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

    That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

      • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Misplaced Pages equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Misplaced Pages does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.
    OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.
    Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.
    An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.
    So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.
    So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    GregBard's incivility

    DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Misplaced Pages, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

    I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

    As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:
    I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.
    And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.
    I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.
    I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.
    I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:
    • This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Misplaced Pages, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
    • The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    @Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Harassment (2nd warning)

    At least one uninvolved admin has given Gregbard the appropriate ultimatum regarding clue on his talk. Closing this before the hole gets any deeper. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    I have already raised the issue of bullying here once before. I haven't done anything for the past three days other than defend myself. So calls for me to "knock it off" cannot reasonably be associated with any issues of which I was originally accused (and which I continue to maintain my innocence). I have had several admins post to my talk page with the presumption of trying to teach me a lesson. If admins want to ask me sincere questions about why I think this attack on my user privileges is unwarranted, then I invite your correspondence. However, this is a second warning to stop harassing me and intimidating me from defending myself. I will interpret any further such attempts as harassment, and I am conspicuously and publicly informing the community that I will interpret it as harassment. I realize that the Wikimedia Board of Directors does not have direct control over whether or not admins harass me. However they do have control over creating and sustaining a hostile environment that allows and encourages such harassment. I have not violated any policy, and I do not intend to. Drop and withdraw the proposal to sanction me in any way and leave me in peace immediately. Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Here's some advice: stop defending yourself and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Your demand above essentially boils down to "I will edit in whatever manner I choose, and the community MUST leave me alone". Sorry, that will NEVER happen. Extensive text above indicates several admins (including myself) feel quite strongly that you HAVE violated a great number of policies. (See earlier discussion, I'm not going to re-list them all). Let me be clear: I will NOT drop the proposal I have made. It was made in my best judgment and it was created for other admins to review and consider. If anything, your conduct since I made the proposal has strengthened my (initially hesitant) resolve. No harassment has occurred. We have made numerous attempts to engage with you in a constructive fashion, all of which have been met with your histrionics eg. . You have repeatedly characterised this as "bullying", which is baseless.
    Your numerous threats to engage in wholesale disruption in order to get your own way are forcing us collectively into a course I genuinely did not wish to be on. I have already stated I will not take any punitive action against you, lest you take the opinion that this is a personal conflict between you and I. But unless there is a substantial change in your tactics, sooner or later the admin body will be forced to respond. Manning (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not constructive at all. It should be obvious by now that engaging Gregbard in an authoritarian manner is not going to "work" if the goal is to actually keep him as an active editor, and miscasting his statement isn't helpful either. NE Ent 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Except, I don't see that at all in Manning's response. He's simply presenting his prediction of future events, and laying them out for Greg to see and understand. I actually find your comments, NE Ent, unhelpful and quite frankly, interfering with the discussion. Greg has to be told what's going to happen if he continues down this path. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ne Ent - In general I would fully agree with your dissent on authoritarianism. However all other methods on interaction have been tried and failed, as far as I can tell. If you have a better approach for getting GregBard to accept the apparent consensus and conform to community practices, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. Manning (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment

    This one too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    This is a formal written complaint against User:Viriditas for a willful act of harassment, not more than few hours after a second warning to cease and desist from such behavior. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    It is of course written, but it's hardly formal (or persuasive) without a diff. Precisely what are you complaining about? -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    @Hoary - The complaint is about this pair of posts.
    The key phrase in the Harassment policy is "repeated". A scan of your talk page history indicates User:Viriditas has never contacted you previously. Viriditas has made a total of two posts, the second only to clarify the intent of the first. Hence no harassment has occurred. I also note you have failed to leave a notification on User_talk:Viriditas, as the AN/I policy clearly states (and which would have been visible when you composed your post).
    Unfortunately your "warning" has no meaning or substance within the Misplaced Pages framework - you have effectively demanded that the entire community leave you alone to edit in any manner you see fit. As stated above, this will never happen. Manning (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Greg, please drop it. This complaint isn't productive. Jehochman 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending

    On the Stefan Molyneux article, SPECIFICO has unilaterally deleted material that was discussed on the article's talk page. No consensus was sought by SPECIFICO for these changes, and it seemed to me that it went against the consensus on the talk page, so I reverted the changes and added a section on the talk page in order to discuss the matter.

    SPECIFICO then added a message that included the following to my talk page:

    Please undo your recent edits and pursue your views on talk to seek prior consensus for your view that it should be reinserted. Merely asserting your rationale for your undo on talk is not sufficient. Please review WP:EW and be aware that such behavior can result in you being blocked. Thanks.

    This is when I had reverted SPECIFICO's edits according to prior consensus, and SPECIFICO apparently hadn't yet commented at all on the talk page in order to try to change the consensus. The tone is threatening and condescending ("Thanks" for something I don't agree to). The initial message to me on a good faith edit on my part threatens me with a block.

    SPECIFICO then responded on the article's talk page, including the following:

    Please undo your recent edits and pursue your view here on talk to seek consensus for reinserting the content I reverted. Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns. Thank you.

    It appears that SPECIFICO will only seek consensus once I comply with their demands and reinsert changes that were against consensus and that were made without seeking consensus. I responded, including my policy rationales. SPECIFICO then falsely claimed on my talk page that I had reverted them twice, that it appeared that I was engaged in an edit war because of that, and again threatened a block. It's quite clear from the edit history that I only reverted them once.

    SPECIFICO then claimed on the talk page that:

    Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you and once again ask you to respond to the specific policy-based reasons for my reversion of the unsourced, non-RS and trivial content. Just state your views as to why these policies do not apply or whatever other rationale you may have, but do not edit war. Please re-read WP:BRD Thanks.

    This is again condescending ("I will do it for you" as if it was my job to comply). This is when I wasn't edit warring and the comment they were responding to was me "just my views as to why policies do not apply apply".

    I really don't appreciate being treated uncivilly, falsely accused, threatened with blocking very quickly and repeatedly, demanded to comply under those threats, and so on. I also don't like that SPECIFICO has ignored past consensus and refused to seek consensus on the changes made, preferring to demand that I comply with their desires before they'll contemplate following Misplaced Pages policy.

    While I haven't discussed it with them on their talk page specifically, I have, as you can see above, discussed it elsewhere. — Olathe (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Comment – While SPECIFICO can be terse, I've always seen him as a cooperative editor most willing to engage in discussion. E.g., he'll engage in WP:BRD. He's not an admin, so threats of blocks (which I do not see in the discussion) are unfounded. The edits complained of (above) may have been better handled with kid gloves, but do not warrant ANI action. If there are disagreements between these two editors, WP:3O is a better COA. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Response — It's not that he's terse. I'm fine with that. It's not even that I think that he always acts like this. He might be generally fine. It's that in this instance he's bossily demanding and threatening, which shows up more on my talk page and in the sequence of events than on the article's talk page. This unpleasantness has apparently happened to at least one other user in the past. In that incident, he apparently accused a person who had reverted his changes only once of edit warring, which that user describes as slander. This sort of slander during what should be fairly minor editing disputes is apparently an ongoing problem that he has not corrected.
    His false accusations look like a barrage to me. He's accused me twice of edit warring for one revert on my part, he accuses me of violating policies in my reverts, he says that I should discuss things on the talk page after I've already started to discuss things on the talk page months before, and he falsely accuses me of not trying for consensus on the talk page.
    I've looked over the article's talk page before and after this incident. It has people talking a while back about the things he deleted because another user deleted them as well. The consensus certainly doesn't support his high level of deletion. He disregarded it.
    More notably, he has no comments at all before he made his significant deletions. His only comments are responses to me, and they include demands that I must comply with before he will even discuss things with me. This is obviously not consensus-seeking on his part, which would appear as him discussing things with me even though I don't take back one revert I made.
    The talk page does, however, include me seeking consensus for a change I made to the article a few months ago. He deleted what I'd added to the article without any comment in that section, which makes it quite hypocritical and false when he repeatedly informs me that I should discuss things on the talk page before I'm supposedly allowed to revert his changes. His demand applies directly to him. I have no reason to believe he even checked the talk page before I reverted him.
    I don't mind trying a third opinion if that's what's supposed to be done, but the primary purpose of my bringing this up isn't to resolve the editing dispute, since that can be done through consensus. The primary purpose is that I don't want to continue to be bullied by him with the risk that people will believe his false accusations. — Olathe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Reply – But we don't have to discuss WP:BB changes before we make them. We make them and then let others contend with us about what we did. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who want to insert or remove material. Seems to me, for the most part, SPECIFICO has been on sound grounds as I have watched him make edits. If he makes edits that contradict earlier consensus, point out the consensus and open up a new discussion. Contact me, if you like, and I'll take a look and help if I can (although this stuff gets pretty abstruse for my poor brain). Finally, I think SPECIFICO will take a look at this ANI and work on being more diplomatic. (Got that, SPECIFICO, these are opportunities for you to mentor.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Response — I don't mind his being bold, but I was as well with my revert but was criticized by him for that with the associated threats. I didn't want an edit war, which is why I reverted once and haven't rereverted his unrevert. He's mentioned which policies he thinks the content violated, but not yet why he thinks those policies are applicable. I have a different understanding than him, but he may be right. I hope he'll explain on the talk page. — Olathe (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • As a co-participant with SPECIFICO at Talk:Bitcoin, I'd also ask him to lighten up a bit. I'm not alleging misconduct per se, but the atmosphere at the talk page is pretty unpleasant and SPECIFICO seems to be contributing to that. Here one of the maintainers (also mentioned in a usertalk diff above) quit being involved in the article after a conflict with SPECIFICO. The article itself is in terrible shape and I don't think the current approach is working. I've looked at old revisions, they had obvious POV problems needing straightforward cleanup, but they were otherwise clearer and more informative than the current version. So I think there's been a heavy-handed approach that has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • (Moved from the thread I just NAC'd about the same editor. My comments were made in the context of that thread but the tone is generally the same and you get my drift. Stalwart111 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC))
    Commentary - People can see I've had plenty of interaction with both SPECIFICO and Steeletrap (on one talk page and the other). Steeletrap is a new WP editor but an intelligent and obviously well-educated person and SPECIFICO, myself and other editors have perhaps jumped into discussions with him at an advanced level, only to later go back and explain some WP acronyms, policies and the like. Bitey? Sure, maybe, but not intentionally so. In the "sink or swim" stakes, Steeletrap is breaking records and winning medals. To outside observers, even the conversations I have had with SPECIFICO might have seemed heated, but I can assure you (from my perspective at least) that they have not been; just detailed and mostly academic. I can certainly understand Mike's perspective but I would suggest he has perhaps seen 1 or 2 talk pages worth of a conversation that has been conducted across 3-4 user talk pages, 6-7 article talk pages and 2-3 AFDs between a whole group of editors.
    As explained on some of those talk pages, I have no real prior understanding of any of the issues in which this "group" is interested (broadly; economics, libertarianism and firearms). I've come to much of this via various AFDs and have had prior interaction with some of the group with previous editors/AFDs. They are all issues where discussions can get heated and people can get emotional. I don't think it hurts to remind everyone to be WP:CIVIL, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place to elicit such a reminder. Stalwart111 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • IDHT Specifico does not agree with the result of the no original research noticeboard, yet is unwilling to address the matter there instead continuing to make his case on the articles talk page. i dont know the correct term or if a violation has occurred and would ask the editor to use the correct venue or stop opposing the edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    IP refuses to adhere to consensus at Superpower

    The IP refuses to acknowledge the consensus and continues to repeatedly restore content that was agreed upon to delete. How can we enforce the decisions of the consensus without the current edit warring? The IP has a battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus to reason with him have gone nowhere. Indeed it is impossible for the discussion to go anywhere as long as the IP refuses to acknowledge consensus. The IP address also jumps (albeit slightly) so a talk-page discussion or placing warning templates wont suffice. I requested semi page protection for a temporary period to prevent the IP restoring unsupported content and possibly (as a result of the PP) forcing the IP to create an account so any discussion could proceed more amicably and warning templates could be placed at the users talk page if he continued his disruptive behavioral pattern. However, PP was declined. Please refer to the consensus here.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Fully protected for now, but this still needs attention. Any takers? (I was expecting to get to the article on Superpower (ability), else I wouldn't have followed that link at all. ;)).
    Antiochus, you will want to read our policy on edit warring in the meantime: WP:EW.
    Amalthea 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Ip user "Antiochus the Great|" has been abusing the superpowers article by inserting information referring on consensus on potential superpowers and claiming he can change the content under superpowers but there is no consensus prior to the unconstructive edits by Antiochus the Great. Antiochus the Great has been on consistent war edits to say there is consensus but there is no consensus on that discussion on superpowers by saying this as prior there has been no open discussion anything on the superpowers talks page since March 13, 2013 copy of history here of showing no consensus and here showing that user talk keeps throwing out this section completely, leaving not one word or source from the original context of the proir discussion of this article. Antiochus the Great is blaming me for saying I am refusing to acknowledge consensus and blaming I am continuing to repeat restore content. First there is no consensus, none under Superpowers and second restoring when Ip user Antiochus the Great reverting back his content saying this was discussed but there is no discussion of it under Superpowers. Why didn't Ip user Antiochus the Great start a discussion under Superpowers talk? But to say there is consensus when there is clearly nothing to defend that claim. Third, to say "battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus" again where. And to bring up something I was never involved in such as consensus here, I never opened any discussion there nor do I plan to. So there's no claim there.
    Personally I am clued and I think Ip user talk is trying to make rules above law when making a consensus and forcing the content without prior knowledge (such as not using the same talk pages from the original articles you wish to change or etc). That's like an example if I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's talk's page" instead then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article" claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page. That is precisely what is going on here but more so Ip user Antiochus the Great is not clear on his consensus and the content in question is not specifically stating the content is going to be written or consensus on to look like. He has provided no copy & paste history of discussions facts and I think that is really asserting the rules over rules here. I think it is forceful and disruptive to the editors to say nothing to the article editors of the very article you want to change; he hasn't done that where it needs to be said & done. I disagree with that and personally feel their is an nationality discrimination on color and authority by talk on his remarks made on Russian culture but I am not going to start anything on that nature. The article needs peaceful consensus without disruptive edits from talk and should be on superpowers article if there consensus of updating, it should be done in the very place of the article lays, is it's talk's page not another article talk page. Please maybe set a rule over this article to set that Ip user Antiochus the Great to calm down and work this out. He is really taking this matter over the edge and that is not the way the article should be handled.--180.92.187.207 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    This is now ridiculous. This is nothing short of trolling by the anon. IP editor. How difficult is it for other Misplaced Pages editors and indeed admins to see what's going on here? Please read through the relevant sections at Talk:Superpower and Talk:Potential superpower.
    The editing of superpower and potential superpower articles go hand-in-hand. Consensus was reached by several editors after a lengthy discussion and analysis of references on the Talk:potential superpower page. It is a particularly academic subject and it seems some are getting confused about the terminology re: super v. great v. emerging powers. And there's also the usual nationalist POV pushing.
    The argument put forward by the anon. IP editor is just silly. The changes made to the potential superpower page have to be reflected on the superpower page. Otherwise the superpower page will not reflect the consensus reached (which was actually a huge step forward, including the expansion of other pages on Misplaced Pages). I find it quite outrageous that the page has been protected with the version supported by a clearly trolling IP editor, rather than that supported by several long-standing editors. David (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Assistance from an Administrator would be welcomed at this stage.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Is anyone going to assist us? We're clearly up against someone (and it really is just "one" - multiple IPs and even a few new accounts) who just wants an edit war and will not back down. David (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Nobody is going to help you here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Am I an IP, or several IP's? Or a new account? I have objected to your removal of Russia on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's not my removal of Russia - in fact, if you bothered to read through the discussions on Talk:Potential superpowers you'd see that I was ambivalent towards Russia's place in the article and would probably have cautiously left it in if it were purely left to me - however there was a consensus (a total consensus against Brazil, and a near-total consensus regarding Russia) and that's what is being reflected in the articles. Or rather it would be if it weren't for one, maybe two, editors (with a bit of sock-puppetry going on) and the superpower page being protected... but the old version protected, which actually results in a material conflict in the Misplaced Pages articles between the superpower and potential superpower articles (with only the latter reflecting the consensus view on Brazil, Russia and so on). Though it seems no one actually cares about this pretty serious disparency. David (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    How obvious does sock puppetry have to be? David (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I will add my two cents here. First the problem began with ip user Antiochus the Great who apparently went on this quest to try to remove Russia superpowers on a very short period of less than 4 days notice on another article discussion. This ip user Antiochus the Great never brough up a single consensus discussion on the talk pages of Superpowers talk, not one word. Then he goes saying, there's consensus over in potantial superpowers saying we had a consensus there by leaving everybody in the dark over on the Superpowers article. He starts an edit war immidiately, changing the content on his context only that's his only and nobody elses, even consensus with nobody knowing the context is going to be written or how it will be said, then people revert back and he reverts back again, again and again. Turns out the consensus under potential superpowers never did consensus on the superpowers, second Ip user Antiochus the Great closes the discussion with no noticed, says it was discussed we're done. This is what we are going to do secretly. No notice, no given discussion, no replies either. He changes the content himself and pretends he is in control of this article and only him. You want to bring a source on board, he erases it like no tomorrow again and again doesn't matter if it's an acadamic source, he'll delete anything on Russia; showing a form a hate in my view because what would anybody call this kind of behavior. Talk about corruption considering Ip user Antiochus the Great has only used the Superpowers article for only a week with nothing on the talkpages, he wants to change everything with no notice, out comes Russia, just like that. Again Ip user Antiochus the Great is making these statements and then he goes filing disputes saying there was consensus, there was consensus, that was discussed, again and again but it wasn't. The problem is Antiochus the Great he is making the problems here on the superpowers and also it appears he is doing the same thing with potential superpowers too. When was the last time both of these articles was closed for disputes? A long time ago, it all started with Ip user Antiochus the Great and I agree with Darkness Shines that the article was objected on discussion and was objected without any consensus. I think there should be a block on Ip user Antiochus the Great, he is causing more trouble for these articles and is creating war campaign with the editors. Everybody is wrong, he is right, that's not how this matter works. I also will add the other Ip user is David has also stirred problems working as a tag team with Antiochus the Great as if the both are the same ip's with different user names. Both have deleted acedamic resources in a heart beat, not even taking the time to read the information, just look at the history, you see an article put in, 2 minutes later is removed, it is like they are set in there own ways to reject everything. You bring the source to the talkpage, these two Ip users Antiochus the Great and David act as wonder twins hurting the article and the editors were created them in the past. To eliminate Russia and it's acedamic sources without consensus, trust me there was no consensus as much as Antiochus the Great says no, it's simply not true with his opening of his dispute in this page and the censensus discussions are not entirely true what he is saying here is not what it says on the talkpages. I feel these articles should be closed for a while and let the air breathe. The fustrations of Ip user Antiochus the Great has made a mess of the article as it looks horrible what he has wrote in there that I wouldn't want a 5th grader to reading them as it is simply not true what he put in there and I defend my edits on what I have tried to bring to this this matter was rejected with not a wind in the sky. So I disgree with Antiochus the Great and David that we should to keep articles closed. They are bullying the talkpages and articles, that is completely unfair to everybody. Please extend the suspension on the articles longer until a length of time passed to see we if we can beta test the waters or continue to close. --103.22.129.165 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Disruption by user:Damonthesis

    This editor, whose first edit was on April 28, is an SPA whose sole purpose is to add material to a number of articles in support of the idea that electronic means can be used to interfere with brain function. The articles affected include psychotronics, stalking, psychotronic weapons (currently at AfD), thought identification, and electromagnetic weapon. Essentially all of his edits have been reverted, by about half a dozen editors, but he reverts back regardless. You can find some discussion of the problem at WP:FTN#Psychotronics. He has been warned for edit warring, copyright violation, and personal attacks. I believe the only way to solve this problem is admin intervention. I will notify him that I have filed this report. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    I came across this editor in my AfD-trawling; I think I should point out this as well. Also, note my comment on the AfD (if you think the comment was a bit too pointed, let me know) Ansh666 04:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    After attempting to to fix a completely broken wikipedia page, and having another user stalk every single one of my Misplaced Pages edits, this user, Looie496, followed me, first removing an entire page because I placed an edit, and then reverting another edit which was properly sourced and on topic. There appears to be a group of self proclaimed censors congregating here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Where they are kind enough to tell you in plain English, that is their goal. I think I've argued for my changes to the Psychotronics page enough, but for one last time, these users have conspired to remove well sourced material from the government of the United States and Russia, in order to leave that page non-reflecting of its true meaning. Again, afterwords, two of the uses on the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard followed me, from page to page, reverting edits to Bible Code (of all things) and Looie496 completely deleted the 7 year old page electromagnetic weapon without reading its Talk page. This user is apparently upset that I reverted his complete deletion of that page, as it had been discussed on its talk page, and the target merge page, and both pages had decided not to perform the merge, which he decided to take it upon himself to do, for no reason at all. This user is defacing wikipedia content, in order to harass me and incite a conflict. None of my edits today have been reverted on any page but Psychotronics, and Frankly, it appears this entire incident is intended to ensure that Psychotronics does not accurately reflect the Russian program's history, and instead continues to be a "fluff" piece, about basically nothing.
    His representation of "half a dozen editors" is baseless, there is a group of 3 editors that are championing the use of the term "psychotronic" to refer to a single scientist from the Czech republic in the 1960s. It is a well known Russian program, that has been sufficiently documented in the US and abroad. As he states, I think admin intervention is necessary. It appears you have a group of people with a concerted agenda to suppress well sourced material... for whatever reason.Damonthesis (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Looie496's other issue is here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Thought_identification where he again refuses to discuss content, and reverts for "bad sources" when the sources are anything but. His actions today have been to revert two good faith edits on Thought_Identification and then delete the entirety of electromagnetic weapons for no reason, then come here and file this complaint. Damonthesis (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Note also the WP:HARASS warning that was issued to the other user, who appears to be gaming the revision system with Looie496, User:GDallimore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Also note Looie496's complete deletion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electromagnetic_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=552977637 Immediately after I made an edit. He had either reverted something of mine on another page before, or after that. Honestly, I feel like I'm being WP:HARASSed, and it's hurting the community because of vigilante censorship.Damonthesis (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    You might want to scroll a bit further down and look at WP:AOHA. While User:GDallimore has received a warning as you pointed out, he has (following advice) stopped interacting with you for now; the other users to my knowledge have not recieved warnings. Ansh666 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what the correct term is for following my edits around, and deleting the entire page I made a minor revision to is.Damonthesis (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    (Involved contributor comment): it is worth noting that Damonthesis, who complains of "vigilante censorship", has repeatedly deleted sourced content in the Psychotronics article: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Or you could see Psychotronic weapons, which includes the content. I moved it because it did not belong associated with the Psychotronics page dealing with a single scientist.Damonthesis (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    The Psychotronic weapons article was clearly created by Damonthesis as a POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand what POV fork means. Please look at the two pages:
    Psychotronic weapons
    Psychotronics at the time of the "Fork" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    (note to Damonthesis: don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign them. Ansh666 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

    It's also worth noting that nearly all the additional information in Psychotronic weapons had been attempted to be merged into Psychotronics using properly sourced material, from the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and a textbook written in conjunction with the NSA. These edits were removed, one by one, as the article returned to its state of having absolutely nothing to do with Psychtronics. Prior to this flurry of destruction this morning, Grumpy and I had a conversation going on the talk page, discussing the meaning of the word. This discussion was ignored, as GDallimore reverted the page without discussion, consensus, or attempt to merge information. That is the reason for the new page, which was, at the time, about a completely different subject. After the AfD, all parties attempted to merge information.. though I think they are in fact different subjects. The Soviet Psychotronics program has no place being "sandwiched" inside a parapsychology article about a scientist from 1960. It is an ongoing research program, that is documented not only in the sources I mentioned, but in numerous news sources in Russia, as well as MSM in the US.05:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)
    Note that contrary to what Damonthesis claims, the article at that time of the fork was not "dealing with a single scientist". I have yet to see a single source that asserts that 'psychotronic weapons' are anything but an application of 'psychotronics' - though having said that, it is hard to say exactly what 'psychotronics' actually is, other than technobabble. Unless and until it is properly defined (as I asked on the article talk page, see Talk:Psychotronics#What exactly is this article supposed to be about?), there can be no justification whatsoever for forking the article on the whim of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I have provided defining articles from the Army, Marines, NSA, and top Russian officials. I'm not sure where the confusion is now. I think the state of the articles above speaks for itself. Damonthesis (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    <outdent> Damonthesis's thesis is that mind control devices are real. I encountered him at Stalking, where he was busy (initially as an IP) trying to argue that victims of so-called "group stalking" who think they are victims of mind control (and some of whom actually line their hats with tinfoil to prevent this) really are victims of mind control. He was abusing a Washington Post article on victims of such delusions to state that it was real, since the article ran off onto a tangent that speculated about mind control devices, and was adding chunks of material on psychotronic weapons to the stalking article. He has since moved into the actual articles on such devices, which, since they are firmly in fringe territory, I've pretty much ignored, but I noted that he filed a retaliatory report at AN3 against GDallimore (talk · contribs), who had nominated Psychotronic weapons for AfD. He has repeatedly argued that criticism of his use of sources and editing agenda is a personal attack and that he's being harassed, when in fact he's just being disagreed with. Some counseling on constructive interaction with other editors, the role of consensus on Misplaced Pages, appropriate ways to deal with fringe and hypothetical material, and appropriate use of sourcing may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    My argument had nothing to do with them "really being victims of mind control." If you read my edits on that page, the only thign I was asking you to do was follow WP:RS and include the opinion in the article that the victims delusional status was questionable, and that there was ample evidence for the weapons to exist. Your article makes it appear that the weapons themselves do not exist, which is clearly refuted by numerous military publications. Further, you cite only half of the medical opinion in both articles you sourced, saying that "support groups" worsen the problem--when in fact both articles note that its possible that they could, but no study has been done, and it is generally believed that support groups can be helpful. Your rendition of the Washington Post articles and NYTimes articles leaves out the majority viewpoint of the articles, which has been pointed out to you over, and over again. Despite that fact, you continually insist to only represent the minority viewpoint on wikipedia, and have locked down the page and ceased discussion. The articles speak for themselves, and the interpretation on Stalking is not consistent with the source material.Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Note that DMacks semi-protected stalking after one such addition by Damonthesis' IP: I've taken no action other than to revert once and to attempt engagement on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I apologize to you.. it appeared from my vantage that you semi-protected it, since no other admins were involved. The discussion there hasn't been very productive though, and it still appears to me that WP:RS is not being followed, as the secondary viewpoints of the sourced articles are not represented in Stalking at all. Please see Psychotronic weapons for a comparative section, which I believe to be unbiased, and more informative/useful. Damonthesis (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Acroterion, Damonthesis is convinced that mind control weapons actually exist *, and our articles are "biased" until he can "correct" them. The problem is, he consistently misinterprets sources, either mistakenly or deliberately. For example, the lead of the POV fork he created up until recently had Misplaced Pages definitively stating that mind control weapons exist and are "used" . Another editor rightfully questioned the language implying that such weapons exist and are operational . Damonthesis responded that "it's in the citation" . I pointed out to him what's actually in the citation: the source only speculates that such weapons are being researched, it doesn't say they exist . Damonthesis reluctantly modified it to say weapons were "reportedly" used .
    * He interprets a law prohibiting malicious use of electronic devices such as lasers, tasers, unshielded microwave transmitters, etc. as proof that mind control "weapons" exist.
    - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    The source, from the United States Marine Corps, specifically says they exist and explains how they are used. The wording used in the article is nearly identical to the Marine Corps rendition, in addition there is support in a myriad of other Military and government publications to show that the program is 50 years old, and continually researched today. This is not accurately reflected still, despite the fact that you have merged much of the information from my "fork," your article still revolves around the psuedoscientific work of one scientist, rather than the Soviet military as a whole, and now makes it look as if the government is reacting to his long dead project. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Which source is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    This is the third time you have asked for it, and the third time it has been provided to you. If you look at the history, I pointed out the URL, and then the specific section it was in. Again, it is in "Russian Views on Psychotronic War" from the Army publication "Parameters" http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm

    Damonthesis (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    That source is not "from the United States Marine Corps". It is written by "Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.)...an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office". Nowhere does it state that psychotronics weapons actually exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's published by Parameters ("The U.S. Army's Senior Professional Journal"), and distributed at army.mil. Lt. Col. Thomas is a high ranking Army officer. The article states:
    Russian Views on "Psychotronic War"
    The term "psycho-terrorism" was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to "take away a part of the information which is stored in a man's brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain." These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, "zombification," or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that "psy" weapons are under development all over the globe. Specific types of weapons noted by Chernishev (not all of which have prototypes) were:
    There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music. Using an infra-sound, very low frequency transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction.
    While many US scientists undoubtedly question this research, it receives strong support in Moscow. The point to underscore is that individuals in Russia (and other countries as well) believe these means can be used to attack or steal from the data-processing unit of the human body.
    Damonthesis (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Where does it say the weapons exist? A military analyst reporting the claims made by a Russian writer isn't authoritative proof that those claims are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's a U.S. Military analyst reporting on a Russian Army Officer and a Russian writers claims about a Russian development program. The page reflects the statements made by the analyst, and the article doesn't even say the "weapons exist." It says they are "used on the mind." If there's a problem with semantics, it can be edited, but the phraseology is taken directly from the source. What assuredly does exist is the program itself, as well as multiple decades of reporting on it. This has been confirmed, again, by U.S. researchers who have witnessed them in action. Damonthesis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    According to the text, they saw some Russians doing a research experiment that involved subliminal audio suggestion via bone conduction. Why do you interpret this to mean they witnessed psychotronic weapons "in action"? This is a good example of abusing a source, and is why a majority of your edits to articles have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I'm disengaging. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Administrative action needed

    Counseling (suggested by Acroterion above) will not suffice here. This editor has been edit-warring on a range of articles and being disruptive in a variety of other ways. We currently have articles that are full of junk because I am not willing to engage in an edit war (thought identification, electromagnetic weapon). The absolute minimum that is needed is a stern warning that any further editing against consensus will lead to a block. I really feel that a block is already more than justified, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Calling my edits junk is OK? They are well sourced factual and relevant. Your actions, in deleting an entire page on a whim, despite talk conversations about merging them, is a bit more of a problem, I think. Damonthesis (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is there anyone experienced in mentoring editors who charge on here to support fringe theories? That's about the only alternative I can see. I'm inclined to believe that unless Damonthesis's behaviour improves by a truly dramatic degree within the next couple of days that an indef is the best way to end the disruption here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe a topic ban on a range of articles broadly related to mind control, psychotronics, etc. is appropriate? That would end the disruption, give the editor a mandatory break from his crusade, and provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of relevant Misplaced Pages policies by perhaps working on noncontroversial articles on unrelated topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    You cannot call a viewpoint that is supported by military sources, news articles in Russia and the USA, as well as a textbook endorsed by the NSA a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is the established viewpoint, and this group has repeatedly attempted to suppress sources which refer to it as such, instead opting to utilize sources which are much older, and refer to an unscientific and un-investigated invention of one person, rather than the truth--that "psychotronics" refers to a long running Russian military development program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I would be willing to try mentoring Damonthesis. I have some experience with Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, and my knowledge of electromagnetic theory might come in handy. I would suggest a one-week block to stop the disruptive behavior, and that during the block he and I have a talk on his talk page about what behavior is expected of him if he wishes to continue editing Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    What we are looking at is the "collective opinion" of 3 editors and an admin that since they do not believe something is possible, any source that disproves that opinion must be WP:FRINGE. These are not fringe sources, we are talking about congressional legislation, military analysis, and intelligence textbooks. The program is very real, and very well documented; despite fringe coverage which definitely does exist. Regardless, the sources here are factual, accurate, and authoritative, and its irresponsible to be fighting their inclusion because of the contrary opinion of an editor. Historical accuracy should be paramount, point in fact, the Soviet Psychotronic_weapons program was created as a parallel program to MK ULTRA at nearly the same time.. the only difference being that the psychotronics program was never shut down, as is well supported by U.S. Military literature throughout the 90's 00's and with recent comments by the Russians themselves in 2011 and 2012. This is being presented as "my opinion" or "my agenda," when in fact I am presenting well sourced facts, and those accusing me of pushing a POV are delivering only their uninformed and un-sourced opinions in response. Damonthesis (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh yes, because The Men Who Stare at Goats was a documentary ... ? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Really? You liken sourcing Military publications and analysis to a fiction movie? Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Damonthesis, you can be completely right about what the article content of a page and still be end up indefinitely blocked because of your user conduct. Likewise, you can be completely wrong about article content, but if your user conduct meets our behavioral standards you can be a productive editor. You need to choose; are you willing to follow the same rules as everyone else or do you prefer to have your editing privileges revoked? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm willing to follow the rules, the edits I made should have at least been looked at, but were summarily dismissed. I attempted to go to another page to provide a better "look" at the differences, and was followed there, having my edits deleted by the same users. I filed a complaint about that, and was subsequently attacked repeatedly. To date, it appears nobody has taken the care to look at the merit of the edits, or the discussion that created this problem. Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Based on the report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked Damonthesis for one week (good number, Guy) for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Other editors were also edit warring, but I chose not to block them because the source of the disruption was Damonthesis. Nonetheless, those editors are advised to be more careful next time. Another admin may have reacted differently. If Guy wants to attempt to discuss mentorship with Damonthesis during the block, that would be much appreciated. I do not believe that the block is too long, but, obviously, the discussion here might result in greater sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Obvious canvassing pointed out here and by a new editor brought to the AfD, I'm guessing by the reddit thread. I don't know the related policy, but I'd suggest more than one week for Damonthesis. Ansh666 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Also FYI, several sleeper accounts have been found and blocked . Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I am going to follow up on Damonthesis' talk page and offer to mentor him. Feel free to follow along; it should be every bit as entertaining as Celebrity Apprentice... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    • I have his talk on my watchlist for some reason...so I'll follow along. I'd offer to help out with anything, but as the one who filed the SPI and stuff I don't think he'd take it as help at all. Ansh666 03:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • He turned me down with a rant about how Fighting Evil Requires Violating Misplaced Pages's Rules. Sigh. (BTW, concerning that rather embarrassing revelation above, I just watch CA because Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller is on it. Really. Don't roll your eyes at me! (Smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, his final Talk page post contains obscure references to Bible quotes, the Boston Marathon Bombing, Psychotronics, and a diff by User:AndyTheGrump. I don't know what that all means, but it's not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    In case there's any admins left looking at this, the AfD here is getting kind of out of hand; several new accounts have posted in response to a reddit post, probably by Damonthesis. Would anyone mind closing it to avoid all this unnecessary SPA traffic? Thanks. Ansh666 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    • (Moving post below by Damonthesis from WP:AN, where it was misplaced. Admittedly there's perhaps not much point now that D is blocked, and I find it meritless in any case, but it doesn't feel right just deleting it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC).)
    User:LuckyLouie appears to use phrases like "Copyedit, according to what source actually says" when removing actual sourced content and placing a biased spin. I have noticed this on two occasions, on pages Thought insertion and Psychotronics. The oddity of using this phrase while at the same time improperly modifying well sourced content to "spin it" stands out. The two occasions I have noticed are here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thought_identification&diff=553056368&oldid=553027521

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966766&oldid=552966437 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966437&oldid=552964397

    All of these revisions did actually reflect "what the source actually says" prior to his edit, which spun them to be biased and to reflect his own opinion.

    I am not sure if there is a larger pattern here, but these three instances are obvious cases of the edit description being deceptive. I imagine it is part of a larger pattern of biased editing; regardless the deceptive tagging is troubling to me.

    Damonthesis (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Possible canvassing on Reddit to Votestack AfD?

    Some new users showing up at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. One hinted that this AfD is being discussed on Reddit. A Reddit search turns up this forum discussion, alleging that "a number of Misplaced Pages editors are conspiring in order to suppress the inclusion of the Psychotronics program" and giving links and pointers to affected article Talk pages, and soliciting comments to the AfD. (The posts originate from a Reddit user calling themselves "needle in eye".) Uninvolved admins might want to take a look at these new accounts, possibly connected to Damonthesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    As I said above, this AfD is getting rather out of hand. I'd appreciate if an admin took some action to prevent the discussion from being flooded by SPAs (they're ignoring the warning up top) Ansh666 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    User:johncheverly

    A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Misplaced Pages talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Misplaced Pages does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Misplaced Pages talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" , rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Misplaced Pages talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

    To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

    Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

    Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

    I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

    Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

    And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

    She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

    Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

    Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

    Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

    Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

    Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

    Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

    Is there anyone on Misplaced Pages that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

    These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Misplaced Pages for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

    Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

    The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks

    And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks.

    Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

    Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later . This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please refer to Censorship---

    2.11 Misplaced Pages is not censored Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Misplaced Pages

    Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

    Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Misplaced Pages's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

    However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

    Misplaced Pages will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    • The attacks on a subject of a Misplaced Pages article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    He told me that he is done and wants his up and whatnot deleted. May as well indef block to enforce it. Go Phightins! 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    There's really no point in indeffing him if he has no intent to return, or even if he does return. We aren't even proposing a community ban, just editing restrictions, such as a topic ban, logged at WP:RESTRICT. If he really wants to leave the community there's nothing we can do to stop him though. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    If he'd really still like to draft up "a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case" (preferably in his own sandbox first), I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see it, as would all the guys (and gels) down in the dark woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mendaliv, if you would rather simply topic ban him at BLP, that would be fine too, but he has a history of questionable conduct no matter where he is. He notified me via email in no uncertain terms that he is fed up with Misplaced Pages, so at this point, I agree, it doesn't so much matter what we do. He's adamant that he's done. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Mass page moves: Greek transliteration

    GreekAlex is mass-moving pages on Greek food to impose a specific transliteration of the Greek names: Special:Contributions/GreekAlex. He seems to have stopped for now, and I left him a note on his talk page, but since his very first edit was today and he started moving pages shortly after his tenth edits in what might well be a controversial way, this might bear watching. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    He must be warned and if he does not stop he should be blocked without delay. Δρ.Κ.  20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I reverted all his page-moves and his terrible transliterations. If he persists he must be blocked. Δρ.Κ.  20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


    Dr. K accuses me of vandalism, I demand an apology. The Greek "ου" transliterates to one single vowel "u" in the Latin alphabet, not in to two vowels. Dr. K says terrible transliterations and says he's right, no you are not. If you don't know, now you know.

    The pages should be moved back to the single correct vowel form which also helps non-Greek speakers of the correct pronunciation.

    And also Dr. K's threats of being blocked should be seen as a direct threatening of an other Wiki-member.GreekAlex (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Alex, we have naming conventions that were determined by WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe that an article needs a different title, then please use requested move and a valid policy-based argument, then wait until consensus is formed - do not move titles yourself based on your personal belief. Providing you a warning (not a threat) is valid, and is therefore not an attack. Again, please do not make further moves of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you BW. Here is some background: This user started edit-warring after two level 4 warnings concerning improper transliteration based on his original research. He calls longstanding, valid transliterations typos:
    Typos fixed.
    Changes Haloumi’s location from Turkey to Cyprus: In Cyprus, Halloumi
    He is also reverting longstanding Turkish onomatology converting it to Greek onomatology at Yuvarlak: converting it to his Greek version "Yuvarlakia" despite “Yuvarlak” being a Turkish word. In talk:Loukoumades he says that the commonname is wrong and not scientific and that I should understand this:

    Even in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Romanization_of_Greek it states the following. Loukoumades is not the right way to write it, it just reinforces the wrong transliteration and spelling and also pronounciation (people pronounce it always wrong with the form Loukoumades (because this is not a scientific article, the form Lukumades should be used instead of the wrong form Loukoumades).

    On his talk he replies to my warnings: It in not vandalism to have the will to correct the transliteration errors made by for example you.. Overall a very tendentious and disruptive editor so far with edits indicating he is trying to suppress longstanding Turkish onomatology which is in addition to the rest of his problematic edits. Δρ.Κ.  13:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Psst ... the warning above SHOULD have been the end of this thread (other than an "ok" from Alex)  :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just to clarify. (This would be obvious to linguistics people, but for the rest of us, here goes.) A distinction might be good to mention here, between "transliteration" and "transcription".

    • In Japanese, the hiragana を is often transliterated as "wo". It's almost always pronounced "o".
    • In Mandarin Chinese, "一, 二, 三, 四, 五" ("1, 2, 3, 4, 5") is transliterated in pinyin as "yī, èr, sān, sì, wǔ". Only "sān" is close to how it would be transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet; neglecting the tones, "yī" is pronounced /i/, "èr" is pronounced /aɹ/, "sì" is pronounced /(erm, next question please?}/ and "wǔ" is pronounced /u/.
    • Transliterations are often close to the pronunciation of the source language, but they are not phonetic transcriptions. "Loukoumades" is the conventional transliteration of "λουκουμάδες", but is not a phonetic transcription of "λουκουμάδες".

    Yum, loukoumades--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    User:PraetorianFury making personal attacks and being generally disruptive

    Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The double-standard here is appalling. Where were your delicate sensibilities when I reported these same attacks and had admins complain about my report? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    He is continuing to act in a way completely contrary to establishing consensus. I made some (many) assertions of notability listing some examples (unsourced). He asked for links. I asked him to clarify which ones he questioned or would find satisfactory. He responded saying "You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it". I am open to opinions and views other than my own, but he completely refuses to collaborate in any useful manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Soda drinker

    Alright, let's assume for a moment that what this user is doing is perfectly alright and not against policy in any way. Let's assume that I'm lacking a sense of humor today. Still, I think this deserves some discussion because I'm not sure how else to proceed. Soda drinker has been making some rather questionable edits as of late, including, but not limited to: inserting jokes into pages (and yes, while this particular page itself is a joke, I'm not entirely sure whether or not it includes adding material that looks like it comes from Jimbo), inserting malicious links, reverting an edit to the sandbox then warning that same user for adding 'obscenities' (which we may remove, but shouldn't warn for since Misplaced Pages is not censored, especially in the sandbox and when not used as a personal attack), making unnecessary edits, spamming the sandbox (I know the sandbox is there for a number of reasons, but I'm fairly sure this isn't one of them), unnecessarily warning another user, , , another completely unnecessary "warning", and creating pages to 'mock vandals'. While I don't believe a block is necessary, I'm not sure if this is a case where the user doesn't seem to understand policy or just blatantly ignores it. Or maybe I just lack a sense of humor today. Admittedly, my involvement may have been a little over the top, but instead of continuing down that path, I figured it would be better to come here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    At 01:43, this user was warned This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:127.0.0.1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This warning seems entirely justified in the circumstances. So, the next time the user disrupts Misplaced Pages, the user is blocked. All very simple. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    He's my friend, actually. I have been screwing around with the sandbox majorly with him and I haven't received any warnings for it. Odd... Alex2564 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    His activity is not limited to the sandbox, though. Ansh666 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Regarding the posting on Stinson ely, his userpage was an advertisement. That is why he was warned.
    Regarding spamming the sandbox, that was to test image loading times.
    Regarding "admins" kiz and stjohn, username policy...
    Your sense of humor is severely lacking, and in addition, you check every one of my edits, to see if I have broken some minor rule. wp:bite. wp:agf. Soda Drinker (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Guilty. I do look at some your edits. I look at others' edits too, and I'm sure you've looked at my edits since the chances of you making this edit just moments after I did are extraordinarily slim. However, WP:BITE does not apply to you since you are not a newcomer and should be aware of policy by now. I made sure to assume good faith, but as I mentioned above, it's not possible to AGF on some of your edits, particularly this one, even if it was in your own userspace. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Guilty of that edit; however I was unaware it would link. That website is actually harmless. Read Code Red (computer worm); that is why I put it there. Regarding being a newcomer or not, I have been a member for a while, but I have not used my account much until recently. Soda Drinker(talk) 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Lemon

    Lemon has been fixed. m.o.p 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Lemon has been modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.155 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    For anyone else as baffled as I was, I have figured out that the IP is simply alerting us that he/she reverted vandalism on the Lemon article. To the IP, many thanks for your help. Manning (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inserting into edit history for locations

    Offending revisions selectively deleted by Gnangarra. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    IPs 58.7.120.193 and 58.7.249.218 have been entering non-encyclopedic material into location article in Perth, Western Australia calling it The Navigator (there may be owther ip numbers used

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northbridge%2C_Western_Australia&diff=553164954&oldid=553164932 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland%2C_Western_Australia&diff=552841784&oldid=552841716

    I would suggest an admin might blank/remove the pages on which it can be seen to discourage the editor from thinking they can exploit page history to leave traces of this non-encyclopedic material inside article history. sats 08:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    The acceptable criteria for revision deletion are detailed at WP:REVDEL#Criteria for redaction. Which of these do you believe pertains in this circumstance? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Second verse, same as the first. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    • Answer for Finlay McWalter - number 3 is quite valid in REVDEL - the editor is gaming edit history to insert non-encyc material sats 14:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The IP has re-inserted the material again...

    obviously prepared to be persistent in putting non-encyclopedic material into an article history. sats 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for that sats 02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Silent Bob

    Check out Cliff1911's talk page. I feel like I'm having a conversation with a wall. Is it a bot? If anyone thinks its worthwhile to try to get through to this fellow, be my guest. There are worse sins than what this guy is doing, so maybe he should just be let alone? Dunno, offered for your consideration. Herostratus (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm more concerned about the not listening/interacting than I am about the linking. In theory, a block would stop the activity - and perhaps force some sort of discussion about it. But that's going way too far for something this minor. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I tend to agree. Cliff1911 has just over 20,000 edits (almost all to the mainspace). Based on my very rough count, I think there are approximately 200 links that Cliff1911 has made to disambiguation pages. That's a rate of one error for every 100 edits. The fact that the disambiguation link issue overwhelms the talk page partly indicates that most of the other edits this user makes are just fine. As the errors don't appear to be deliberate, I'm inclined to say that the benefits of letting this editor continue working under an apparent vow of silence outweighs the costs. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Universally productive edits, accompanied by a 1% rate of generating minor inconveniences that can be trivially resolved. In exchange, he's had at least two direct threats to block him (one for not using edit summaries, and one for linking to dabs, something I've had a good few notifications of myself while performing content work) and an ANI thread with a disparaging title? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah but jeez. We're supposed to be a little bit responsive here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked or anything, but maybe somebody else can talk to him in a way gets through. I sure can't. Are there no arrows in yall's quivers besides "ignore" and "block". I mean after all, ya have to infer that he's either taken the position "I don't read my talk page" (he may not know that he has one) or "I have really no interest in learning or bothering with even very simple techniques to avoid glaring errors, at least as regarding links to dab pages" or "I like making links to disambiguation pages and will continue to do so, so stuff it". It's got to be one of these, and none of these are too good really, and kind of annoying actually. AFAIK links to dab pages can't be trivially resolved by a bot or something, each has to be discovered and fixed by hand; its true that they are are only a minor inconvenience, though. (PS the title is not disparaging, it's sporty and actually bemusedly affectionate, and Silent Bob is a popular figure. And I didn't threaten to block him (couldn't if I wanted to, which I don't), I warned that he might be blocked in future, which is possibly true (you never know).) Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The problem is, when someone is totally noncommunicative, there really aren't any arrows other than "ignore" and "block". Every form of dispute resolution on wikipedia requires everyone involved to communicate. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well he's noncommunicative to me. But maybe an actual admin could give him a nudge or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Repeated disruption by IP

    IP blocked and then unblocked. Hopefully we've all learned something today. m.o.p 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    User talk:99.129.112.89 has repeatedly removed maintenance tagging for the IP that they are using which is covered under WP:BLANKING. By several user's including admin. I have myself added the maintenance template warning and am currently using a 3rr exemption to revert the continued Disruption/Vandalism issue. I would like to raise the issue of this and a history of NPA, AGF and failure to understand wiki policy on top of this, however the most serious at this time is the removal of encyclopedia maintenance templates. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    That template is meaningless, and the only reason you're edit warring about it is to "win" against a perceived enemy. Leave it alone, and the encyclopedia will not be any worse off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, great, I see the IP editor is blocked because they're removing a useless template from their talk page. How utterly fucking typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I blocked the IP for a short time (31 hours). As Floquenbeam notes, this is a pointless dispute. However, not only has the anon persisted in games on the user talk page, but their edits at User talk:Callanecc indicate an intention to disrupt and hint that this is a registered user editing anonymously. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Edit conflict: That's a false interpretation. Floquenbeam, thanks! The block should be removed. I am not being disruptive, people are just mad I remove there petty messages on my page then seek revenge. It's immature! I have ignored them and continued to be productive, but one can only take so much! Why can't they move on and leave me alone? They are clearly the ones needing warnings and blocks... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    That is funny, WP:BLANKING says "Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." So who is going to block HIAB for violating 3RR on that IP talk page, Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that you feel that way, I don't really care about the other stuff. I would ask though if it's meaningless why is it covered under WP:BLANKING? Specifically "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." Now I'm only asking this because of a striking similarity with ] regarding Ip warnings/blocks and ] here noting that there is an account if this isn't you editing yourself or someone you may be connected to? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    @Darkness Shine, shit yeah I didn't see that. If I have to take some licks for that one it would indeed be my fault. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    This is the problem, people not paying attention and just bullying IPs and editors who are only trying to improve articles and mind their own business. I knew you were the one who was guilty, not me. You couldn't just leave it alone. Just keep pestring me and pestering me. This is why users run off and vandalize in the first place. I've maintained my peace throughout! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm sorry that you feel that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Floquenbeam removed the block I placed. I have no interest in continuing the wheel-war over this. However, I wish to point out these diffs indicating that the IP is a registered user who is deliberately editing logged out, and that their intent is disruption: --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors (such as HIAB). I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Misplaced Pages as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. I also wanted to think I was using another account (or created one) in an effort to keep them from Wikihounding me anymore. This was yet another waste of all of our time! P.S. HIAB, I hope you and your camp move on and leave me alone so we can do what is the interest of Misplaced Pages! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

    Complaint has been re-posted twice and there appears to be nothing actionable. Editor advised to either drop it (preferable) or take it to a more appropriate venue Sædon 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
    Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
    The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
    -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
    -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
    At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director:
    There have been discussions at RSN already about:
    the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
    the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
    (in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
    Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
    I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
    I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
    The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
    And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    I see the last topic ban proposal Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Misplaced Pages forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


    So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

    So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

    All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

    1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
    2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
    3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
    4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

    So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

    So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

    And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.
    Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.
    Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:
    make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or
    demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation
    If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.
    I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.
    And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.
    Fuck that. -- # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.
    Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.
    Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    This complaint is not about White privilege. As above, it is about your edit history and non-RS/POVPUSH at Black Panther Party and the discussion that established these sources and claim as non-RS at Huey P. Newton. The discussion at White privilege is irrelevant.
    I will not be editing at any of these pages until some sort of consensus is established here. -- # _ 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Reposted

    Reposted. -- # _ 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Question: If I remove these sources and claims which have been established (above) as non-RS without engaging in subsequent discussion, how do the administrators here suggest I react if these removals are reverted, without getting involved in an edit war? -- # _ 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Counter Question: What immediate Administrator action is required? The fact that your previous posting got archived without any sort of response is an indication that Administrators aren't seeing anything actionable. If it's a question about reliable sources, then Reliable Sources Noticeboard is the place to hash it out. If it's a content dispute, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is the appropraite place. If it's a conduct issue, you're going to have to make it clearer. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is it not clear from the language and links above that this particular content has already gone to WP:RSN? -- # _ 19:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I mean, I've given diffs (of both the edits at issue and their previous discussions, including at RSN) of what seems, to me, like clear and unambiguous POVPUSH behavior -- taking sources that were deemed non-RS and removed from one article, and using them in a related article to support the same point of view. POVPUSH is right there in the post title. I have diffs. There is a previous ANI case about NOTFORUM behavior that I have linked. What more do you want? Just tell me. -- # _ 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Your screed of text that is already archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH caused me to TLDR. The text claims not to want sanctions but is asking for sanctions and seems to be fairly obvious in what your next steps are. Let the natural death of the thread occur if that's what needs to happen, don't repost. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I got exactly one person suggesting i go to arbcom. is that what YOU suggest I do? I feel like action is necessary here, but I have no idea what that might look like. I have tried multiple times to get this underlying behavior issue addressed, and have found little in the way of help. I am unwilling to "let it die a natural death" (whatever that means) because I still do not have the information I am seeking -- specifically, what I should do next, and how to handle the inevitable difficulties that will arise from, say, just reverting those edits. I have no other recourse, as far as I can tell, other than making a nuisance of myself here. -- # _ 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Making yourself a nuisance here will not accomplish anything but possibly a block for you. You're not getting any response here because, as was said above, there is nothing actionable here. This is not a board equipped to handle complex disputes, it's for more obvious policy violations. For complex conduct cases your options are WP:RFCU and Arbcom. For content disputes you need to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, including WP:3O and WP:DRN. Sædon 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin impersonation: 198.228.228.36

    BLOCKED Obvious troll is obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    198.228.228.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be someone impersonating an administrator. They're going around posting user block templates and marking unblock requests as reviewed. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry, had to go AFK for a few minutes and wasn't able to notify the user right away. Thanks to User:Ansh666 for taking care of that for me. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:168.190.80.40

    Okay people, let's move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Only 34 edits, resulting in 8 warnings: great score. Could someone take a look at the behaviour of this IP? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe this should be resolved through consensus -- because we all know that the collective agreement of the few are right. That's exactly what they said about Iraqi. User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Lova Falk are ruining Misplaced Pages -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Disturbing Behaviour by User:SPECIFICO

    Closing to allow earlier ANI thread to continue (non-admin common sense close) Stalwart111 05:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere – Comment about another ANI is best posted and resolved at that ANI Resolved – Question of seeking an off-wiki contact not a violation and contactee-editor has no objection

    I first noticed this individual on this board and the 3RR board where they were attempting to report users involved in a debate over Gun control. I decided to provide a WP:CIVIL notice on their talk page and was met with justification for his actions . I've just observed a discussion where he was requesting that a user he was involved in a dispute with "Hello Steeltrap. On a non-WP note, could you send me an email using the email link on the left maegin of my user page so that I can ask you a question about your academic work?". He has filed 3RR , without basis, threatened users with blocks if they did not follow his direction to restore his version of an article among numerous other WP:CIVIL and WP:Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering encounters. This behaviour is not within the spirit of Misplaced Pages nor should users be intimidated by his treats and use of policy to push his point and I feel that experienced users/admins need to review this. Mike (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Hey. I can't speak to all of this stuff, but I can certainly say that SPECIFICO's request to me was completely in-bounds. I am paranoid about being "outed" so I didn't give him the email. :) But in the process of collaborating on edits that contribute to this community, we have -- even when we disagree --been cordial and friendly to one another. And I have discussed my thesis to him many times in the past. Given this context, his mild mannered request for my contact info should NOT, I insist, be characterized as improper in any way. Steeletrap (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Steeltrap and I have been colleagues here since he began editing here. He and I are both interested in the Austrian School and some related topics. As stated in my message on Steeltrap's talk page, I was interested in discussing his research with him. I am at a loss to understand how that prompted user:Mrfrobinson's complaint here and ask that it be closed. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed that his interaction with steeletrap should not be considered out of bounds (although it can raise issues of suspicion). BTW, if you want to email him, I believe wikipedia does include some anonymous email tools where he can email you via the site without you revealing your address.
    Also agreed that his behavior regarding 3rr is objectionable, and he is repeatedly on multiple articles attempting to win content disputes by technicality. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:99.129.112.89

    NO ACTION Warning to all about trolling and edit warring. Activity seems stopped (can only hope for good).—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Insists on keeping a hit list of users, with "knock it the fuck off, this is a talk page violation!!!!!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    He says it is not a hitlist and that he is working on something regarding users who have stalked/harassed him. Which policy is he violating? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    WP:UP Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not advocating a block here, and wish everyone involved would grow up and learn to let things roll off their back, but just to be clear: I would not consider a block for this to be wheel warring (since the IP was blocked by Orlady and unblocked by me already today). I'm playing Pontius Pilate here; I don't care what anyone does anymore. So if you don't block because this whole thing is dumb, I salute you. If you don't block because you're worried about being accused of wheel warring, don't worry (at least as far as I'm concerned). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Which part of WP:UP? I see nothing there about what another user may consider a hitlist, I do see this WP:NOBAN Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK. So what's the decision here now? Are these allowed or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Honestly in a situation like this the sharpest dagger you can pull out is to go to an article that needs help and add some great content to it... Zad68 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    That might all be true, but in the past I've seen people blocked for keeping stuff like this. If there has been or is now a change in policy or behavioral guidelines, I'd like to know about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    (uninvolved; actually, I shouldn't even be here but whatever!) TRPoD tried to remove it twice again and the IP was obviously pissed off...also, IP removed the AN/I notice because "user did not sign". I'll add the shared IP notice back on top of the message and the AN/I notice back on the bottom and see what happens. Ansh666 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I remove the shared IP message as it is obviously pissing off the IP. Why on earth did you replace it? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I figured someone else might be using that IP in the future...is it static? (I'm not tech-savvy enough to know these things) Ansh666 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: As a user listed on this list, I would simply like to know what exactly it exists for. If it's not definitively against policy, it certainly is rude to have that sort of list of users you dislike. TCN7JM 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)It is static, but even they change. My point is that template is making the IP very very angry, so why keep adding it? As Flo said, this is all very silly. I'm going to bed.
    Yeah, sorry about that, not thinking straight. Good night! Ansh666 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I really only find those IP tags useful when they identify specific groups such as school, so admins know to use a {{schoolblock}}; or when there's an obviously dynamic IP to help future users of the IP understand that messages posted may be leftover from prior users of the IP. Otherwise, especially for dynamic IPs, it just usually irritates them and can simply be left off. In the end, info about the IP is just a click away anyways by clicking one of the links in the IP user info box at the bottom of their contributions page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Be patient, everyone needs to slow down and wait to see what I was doing! What's a "hit list"? I've just now been able to get here and post this. I still need to read all this nonsense. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just so you know, your talk page is there for others to give you messages, not for you to give messages to others. Ansh666 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please don't tell this user to give us all talk page messages. He'll more than gladly do so. This is the user that went to every baseball season talk page to comment that he wasn't going to contribute. TCN7JM 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh. Whoops. This is why I don't belong on AN/I, heh. Ansh666 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    If talk pages were only for others to give messages to you, things would get ugly fast. Per WP:UP "User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content."
    No, you're misinterpreting WP:UP. what you are describing is the User namespace (for you, User:99.129.112.89); the talk page is for others to leave notices or messages. For example, see my talk page, which should only have a message or two from SuggestBot right now (I have a custom signature; click the italicized numbers to see it). Ansh666 21:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Or, see my talk page (and that of several other users and admins) which have notices at the top of our talk pages. It's a pretty common practice that has never been disputed as far as I know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Those are general notes to everyone and no-one would complain about that. The question is can I keep a box naming specific people? Again, if that's the agreement now so be it. It wasn't so in the past. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    In this case, the IP is clearly communicating to the listed individuals with whom they have prior involvement, which is a permitted use. It's not a "hit list", although when initially created it's true intent was unclear. At this point though, it's a non-issue and everyone should just move along. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK. Is this view the agreement here? E.g. users are allowed to post messages to others onto their own talkpages and keep them there? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    TCN7JM, the comments you and Redmen have about me on your talk page under a topic I started is what is rude. The fact you are here proves you are Wikihouding me. Those "lists" were to be messages to people. Everyone relax and leave me alone. I'm repeating myself... Pay attention before just going trigger happy. This is a misunderstanding based on people moving too quickly and not letting me edit my own talk page before you come in with your big hands and mess it all up. Knock it off, this is immature. Why pick on me? Am I that interesting? I can't keep up and therefore I am avoiding this topic. Reposting the same thing doesn't mean I didn't get it. P.S. Tell the whole story, TCN7JM. You are lying. Not all. I replied as a follow up to a message I left as you did about my contributions to the few articles. You are causing problems, please exclude yourself from this. That is why I addressed you on my talk page. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Let's throw out whether the disputed content should or should not be on the page. This much is clear to me:

    1. WP:UP#NOT: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" is mentioned, and "community-building activities that are not strictly 'on topic' may be allowed." I'm seeing this list of user as a soapbox to single out their behavior, and it is not building community as people are warring over this when they could be working on building WP.
    2. WP:EW: Whether or not something is "right", we don't tolerate reverting back to preferred versions. We discuss and come to a consensus. This is not happening.
    3. This whole thing is WP:DISRUPT to a tee, from everyone.
    Frankly, there is too much trolling on both sides trying to make their WP:POINT. This is likely headed to a trainwreck where someone will get blocked and complain they were provoked when so-and-so got off. Perhaps, but (hopefully) it will stop the drama here. Just stop the trolling everyone.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    OOH OOH WHERE WHERE! Ansh666 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I can't keep track of all these violations against me. All because I'm an IP. Ah, an editor without a country. Shame... Thanks Bagumba. I'm done, this is ridiculous and was pointless. I tried to explain but people continued to disrupt. Do research first, and if you want to know who is doing what, read the edit summaries and talk pages. TC, you have no room to talk. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is quite simple. Edit warring is not accepted; editors are instead advised to follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ad Hominem personal attack and Racism by User:Vsmith

    Even if this was an issue, it'd be decidedly stale after three months. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Neither attack nor racist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Vsmith has personally attacked me (ad hominem) and made racist comments about Eskimo people.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    ? How do you construe that as a personal attack and racist? And it was back in January. Kinda late, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, to be honest, your remark was pretty dumb. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    Folks, this is obvious trolling. Please close and consider blocking. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Further Comments

    It's said Misplaced Pages became like this. Being labled "Dumb" and "Troll" for reporting discrimination?

    It is racist, because this person says "hmm perhaps Eskimo and should obviously be named Charley (as in Brown)." He is trying to say that Eskimo people are "irrelevant" and "collateral" and "invaluable". Similar to "Big in Japan." He is saying "Eskimo people are so lesser beings that Y-chromosomal Adam and Eskimo people may be associated only for teasing and for making fun of it"

    It is ad hominem, because he says, "Take your discrimination blather elsewhere, we just report what the reliable sources use." He is saying my expression is "blather" -which is an offense per se- and trying to dismissing or discrediting my views. From WP:NPA page:

    An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

    — WP:NPA

    Hope these clarifications help.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Request RFC closure

    I requested FPP for Gun Control due to an edit war, so that a DR I opened could proceed. FPP has been granted. the DR is now being rejected, because there is an open RFC on the topic. IMO the RFC is stale without consensus. It was opened 15 days ago. No major commenting in the RFC section has been done in several days, (although extensive discussions are elsewhere on the same topics). I made a motion to close on the talk page 3 days ago, which was seconded, but no other comments. I made a request for closure yesterday on the noticeboard with no response. Very heated controversial topic and debate, so definitely need an uninvolved person to close.

    If someone could either close the RFC so the DR can go forward (or to take action on the RFC I suppose), or make some other resolution to the current situation that would be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

    The above-linked CfD was closed as;


    “ The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion? ”

    I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" . Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."
    We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.
    Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.
    That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:
    1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?
    a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.
    b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!
    Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.
    1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)
    A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.
    1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
    2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.
    So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Misplaced Pages:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    +1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon  04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon  05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Misplaced Pages isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.
    In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)
    Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Misplaced Pages would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Compromise

    Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

    • No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).
    If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

    Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:
    1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.
    Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?
    Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.
    It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.
    Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?
    1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

    1. It isn't.
    2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    • I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified." Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    . Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Misplaced Pages reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    General comments

    Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Misplaced Pages, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

    There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

    Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

    I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • WP: SNOW Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productiv editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Misplaced Pages editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Pitchforks down, please

    • Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Block of Blackcountrygirl

    I'm concerned to note the recent block of Blackcountrygirl (talk · contribs), a good-faith editor, with no apparent prior discussion, and allegations of spamming. She last edited on April 8.

    Disclosure: She's writing about the Black Country Museum, where I have previously run a Misplaced Pages "backstage pass" event. I don't know that I've ever met or corresponded with her, and have not been asked by them to intervene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    There were a number of articles created by Blackcountrygirl which were deleted around the time she was blocked, they were all promotional in nature (and as far as I can tell, all concerning the Black Country Museum) but these were created back in April, around the time she last edited. I'm not convinced a block serves any useful purpose in this case given the user hasn't been editing at all for a month. There are other issues here, it looks like Blackcountrygirl has been uploading copyright material from the Black Country Museum too, so someone is going to have to spend time going over the various policies with her. A generic copyright violation template, a CSD tag and block notice are almost certainly going to leave this user confused and disheartened, indeed I wouldn't be too surprised if that's why they've not been back to edit in a month. Nick (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Andy, if some other admin want to unblock her and take her by the hand, I'm not going to get all pouty about it; but it appears to me that she really, really doesn't understand the limits on promotion, WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. She basically created a whole article on every little display in the museum, sourced solely to her venue's own website and often copyright-violative. (Yes, some kind soul did give her links that could have been used to waive copyright.) There's a line between AGF and allowing shameless advocacy, and it seems to me that she crossed it long ago. Nick: "back in April" can mean "four days ago". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    What was the point of blocking someone who hadn't edited in weeks for 31 hours for an offense committed weeks ago? That's not a preventative block, that's a nonsensically weak punitive block. If you were going to block, it should have been indefinite; and, you should not have blocked. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    She last edited on April 8 - hardly "four days ago". Please explain why you blocked someone who has not edited for almost a month; and why you did so with no warning, let alone an offer of advice. Your reference to "every little display in the museum" is a gross exaggeration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Andy - Seven articles - now deleted - on exhibits at the museum. I agree with Mike's assertion that a line has been crossed with regards to promotion and shameless advocacy. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Seven articles - each of which will meet WP:N with a little more research - is not "every little display in the museum". She's not blocked for breaching WP:N, nor copyvio, but for spamming, With no warning or discussion of that. Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I put to Mike? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please explain how e.g. Lench's Oliver Shop would ever meet WP:N, let alone "with a little more research". The only reliable source for this is the Museum, which is not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Your false claim about a supposed "only reliable source" ignores journal and press articles, in print not online, about the relocation of the shop. How is this relevant to a block based on an undiscussed allegation of spamming, made a month after the event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not a false claim at all: the article had only this to offer, "Black Country Museum (2012) Black Country Museum Guide, p21". Deletion was valid. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The topic was the potential for evidencing the article's notability in the future, not its state when deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Lench's Oliver Shop opens up a rich seam of important topics which we have poorly covered. Industrial history is a neglected field and we should be supporting a museum which covers it, rather than persecuting them. The editor in question should be unblocked and an apology given. Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mike, sorry, meant to say a month ago rather than last month. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked. I'm not really sure I see where the surprising or unusual aspect of this case comes in. That said, their whole problem relates to this one museum, so I would support an unblock with a firm agreement not to edit within that area again in the future. I think the risk of this account doing other, generalised spamming is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    "They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." You realize that blocking is preventative, not punative, right? Blocking for only 31 hours nearly a month after their last edit makes no sense whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    "They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." Where? Where were they warned for it? I see no reason or policy basis to topic ban a new editor for being enthusiastic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't particularly care about the museum or its contents - the articles may or may not have ended up acceptable over time, I dunno. But the user's talk page runs as follows: Copyvio notice, Copyvio notice, Link to Donating Materials, Copyvio notice, Block. Not once is the editor told that she may be blocked, nor is she told to discuss the matter. Now, if I post repeated copyvio, damn straight I expect to be blocked - but I'm not an editor who registered in March 2013 and has 81 undeleted edits. The block may be valid, but I think that one note saying "Stop posting this and discuss the matter" would have sufficed rather than a block. Of course, that note may not have had an effect since the editor stopped editing a month ago! What urgency was there in blocking her today? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you. Perhaps an experienced admin could advise OrangeMike on the appropriate use of his tools; and the potential harm caused by misusing them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    The two factor test applies: 1) is the name promotional, or violating the username policy. In this case, without looking at the edits it's borderline. Test 2) is the promotional/COI edits, which in this case is apparent (whether or not the possible articles are "notable"). In this case, the articles are promotional/COI and provide a direct link to the inadmissibility of the username. As such, the block appears correct - no matter when the block has been made (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Given that the editor had stopped editing on April 8th, what harm to the project was prevented by this block? Even if it was a correct block (a fact I do not stipulate), what purpose is served by blocking in this instance without issuing a final warning, as is standard? Put another way, if this was sent to AIV I would have likely warned the editor - but would also have declined the report as stale. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Based on what you said, if there was any block, an indefinite block would apply - but a 31 hour block? That makes no sense at all. What do you mean "no matter when the block has been made"? How does a 31 hour block a month after they last edited prevent any further damage? --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Utter tosh. The Black Country is a geographical region of the United Kingdom; the username is no different to "NewYorkGuy" or "BerlinBabe". The alleged "promotional/COI" nature of the articles has not been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Removed content of George Maharis's arrest

    The consensus agreed to have the arrest added. However, one user, Delicious Carbuncle, removes it, citing a policy as a reason to overcome consensus. Shall the "arrest" info be re-added or left out? --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Here is the situation: Maharis was arrested in 1974 in a public washroom in Los Angeles. He plead "no contest" to a charge of trespassing. Detailing such a minor charge is completely out of proportion in the biography of a living person which does not even have a "personal life" section. We would not include a minor traffic violation in an actor's biography and this is no different. I believe that some editors may be motivated by a desire to use this incident to imply that Maharis is gay. I have removed the inclusion as a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), this seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to include this at all, 100 years from now this will not be regarded as significant to this man's career. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of dirt, WP:BLP applies even if the matter is reliably source because this is so trivial. Its 'gay-connection' thing is a huge concern is creating suggestions of a particularly damaging nature. ANI does not handle content disputes, but it seems another RFC is open on it. This isn't a behavior matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    George is most kind to alert us that the locally established consensus on Talk:George Maharis is problematic. We should all find time to head over to that page in order to ensure that the consensus there pays more attention to WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I didn't want to be called out for my earlier point of content versus behavior focus. That's all, if I didn't mention such a thing I would surely hear about it later in my own content dispute. Though that is another topic entirely. I'll comment there about my stance, ANI really isn't the preferred spot to make high level decisions on content like this, so comments should go into the rfc. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    George Ho started this discussion because of my actions, not to discuss the underlying content dispute, and they were correct to do so. But it doesn't hurt to remind editors that consensus or RfCs on an article talk page cannot override policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I also agree with DC and the comments supporting him, with the caveat that if the article that DGG cites on the talk page came from a genuinely reliable source, rather than a non-notable family-friendly gossip columnist/celebrity journalism repackager, there might be a reasonable contrary argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Generally an edit like this must be scrutinized, criminal activity on a biography of living person should not be added unless it is significant to either their career or produced a significant amount of literature. When in question, I completely agree with DC's actions, the questionable material should be removed until a consensus that is in line with policy can be established. I think George did the right thing by looking for another venue of inquiry (although I would have gone elsewhere before the ANI), and I think he has his answer that a community of experienced editors questions the inclusion of this material. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    BLP violations by two SPAs at Steven G. Kaplan

    1. VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
    2. Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Misplaced Pages, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
    3. The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
    4. Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).
    Selected diffs and evidence

    BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report":

    Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries:

    Note: I was referred here from WP:BLPN at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_G._Kaplan.

    And one of the accounts above did it again, just now.

    Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    The page has been protected and the users warned, I'll keep an eye on the page and the editors. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think more than a first-level warning is necessitated here, like either a block, or a final-warning. These are significant blatant BLP violations that have been going on for months with one account and years with another. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Looking at the edits and comments in the talk page by both accounts, it seems like they're using Misplaced Pages to further some sort of vendetta or off-site dispute. §FreeRangeFrog 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    What to do about AfD created by Paul Bedson sock?

    Mone Bedson nonsense dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    I've just blocked QaraounCultureBuiltEden (talk · contribs) as a blatant sock of Paul Bedson (talk · contribs). He's created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Christianity (2nd nomination) for an article whose AfD just closed 2 days ago as Keep. Not sure what to do, I'd like to delete it, not just close it - I'm pretty sure the participants won't mind but I'll mention this there. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    • I'd say delete, as one would do with any other page created by a blocked user in violation of their block (WP:CSD#G5). GiantSnowman 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, that seems sensible. This time he has reverted a lot of edits made by an earlier sock that I'd ignored, so I'm not reverting his edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I differ. A while back I tagged a Mangoeater AFD per G5, and the consenus at WT:CSD at the time was that if there'd been any !votes by other users, then the AFD should be either: 1) allowed to continue with a note reflecting the nominator's block (if there were any delete !votes) or 2) speedily kept (if there were none). (IIRC, in that particular case, no one had voted yet, and the AFD was deleted.) Someone should draw up a flowchart or something. But yeah, I'd say a speedy keep is in order. — PinkAmpers& 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Collapsing Bedsonsock trolling. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    *PinkAmpersand's interpretation is logical. The rules state that the page can be deleted if the "majority" of it was written by other users. As soon as anyone voted with a longer sentence than the nomination, the page should not be deleted as per the law. This would also apply to certain other articles you are deleting Doug. (P.S. Time for the Zealot inquisition to re-open) General Urlov (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Wait, what? A sock of a banned user is nominating for deletion articles another sock of the same user created? I still say just speedy keep, but now I also say "?" --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, it's just trolling. Don't do an MFD, that would be feeding it. Just speedy keep, since people have commented, and speedy delete any subsequent AFD's by new socks as soon as they show up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Honestly, wouldn't that be an abuse of your assumed position. Sockpuppets aside, I love how obvious most of them are, but is it just me or is there good hand and bad hand socks lately, and sleeper ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2013‎
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DUCK block requested

    user blocked by Reaper Eternal / Timotheus Canens

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

    We have a Quacker Vietnamese Liberal Party (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    If the community actually cared about the excessive sockpuppetry on this article in general (let alone sockpuppetry altogether), then Dinh Bo Linh should be full-protected for a very long time. --MuZemike 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Troller8000

    Troller8000 indef-blocked by Nick. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    Troller8000 ( talk | contribs |Block )

    Has an unacceptable username that could encourage Trolling. please siteban the account for the username. Trolling has hurt this wiki many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.238.157 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

    IP User 50.37.147.15

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

    IP blocked for a week. Manning (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}}

    IP User 50.37.147.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) has been warned repeatedly to stop removing {{Marriage}} templates from articles without consensus. After proposing it for discussion/deletion (WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 3 § Template:Marriage), they went silent. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the template is being actively worked on to resolve the issues that people have brought up.

    I previously requested some attention to the issue, and the user's possibly being a sock, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793 § IP 50.37.147.15 disruption. The discussion was derailed into the details of the template dispute, and then died.

    On May 2, the user made this edit to remove the {{Marriage}} template, again without comment or consensus. I've reverted the edit and request they be blocked from further such action, and checked to see if there is evidence of being a sock. —— 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Blocked. I'll note there is another IP with very similar behavior, including identical edit summaries - 69.166.47.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). This IP has also edited the talk page of the blocked IP, suggesting a link. Manning (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inspire (magazine)

    Inspire (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Editors have repeatedly inserted links to archive copies of the magazine's articles. This is abnormal. At most there would be one link to a magazine's official website. In this case, because the magazine promotes criminal activities, it is dubious whether Misplaced Pages should be linking to any copy of the magazine at all. We should not allow our high visibility site to be abused for promoting outside causes, especially causes that violate the laws in the country where Misplaced Pages is published (and in other countries where Misplaced Pages may be accessed).

    I doubt that we have well formed policy about this case. Common sense would be not to link to this magazine at all, and that the article should rely exclusively on secondary sources. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and if appropriate place the article under permanent semi-protection to prevent the article from being abused as a means of spreading propaganda and inciting criminal activities. Thank you. Jehochman 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Disregarding legality/morality of the activity the magazine promotes, copies archived on websites would be copyright violations, right? I would think we should keep them out for that reason at a bare minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    I've reverted and semi-protected based on my understanding of the copyright issue, per WP:LINKVIO. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. Copyvio is the easiest way to stop the publication. Though if it has a real website... chances are if pushed Misplaced Pages would have to include the link. This stops the problem for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27] (again)

    Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) under the IP of 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Guatemalan IP that's under a six month IP range block for adding dates despite repeated warnings. This IP was blocked from another IP range 190.106.222.0/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was blocked for three days but has continued again to add dates. At this point, do I continue reporting here or at SPI? EDIT: And this IP too: 190.106.222.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) EDIT2: Add this 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    Request to eliminate restrictions

    Alright so it's been 18 months since User:Bwilkins gave me restrictions because I uploaded several non-free images that I tried to take full ownership of. I believe I can continue on Misplaced Pages without these restrictions and not get into any more trouble. Since September 2011, I have not been called upon at WP:AN/I and have been taking some wiki breaks as a result of my overall good behavior on Misplaced Pages. I understand what I did was wrong and promised not to ever do it again. I have a full understanding of Misplaced Pages's non-free content requirements and rules and need the ability to upload these as I begin to take articles I've expanded substantially to FAC which requires the use of non-free content to illustrate the article and to inform the reader. I've been asking several users on Misplaced Pages that I've been in good terms with to help me with artwork and/or music file uploading when the article I've expanded needs one. I believe I have demonstrated since 2011 that I won't be a menace on Misplaced Pages, and believe I can be counted on to take full responsibility of my actions and not act immature towards editors. Hope you guys can see the good in me and grant me back my full user rights . Best, Jona 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Support   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?
    From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jona 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.
    The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)
    ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.
    Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.
    Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Restrictions are on top of users' talk page User_talk:AJona1992. For me, all the relevant information is: a. date of restrictions and b. no blocks for violation in the intervening interval.NE Ent 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Misplaced Pages's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jona 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jona 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jona 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support per MRG and discussion above. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - Its time to get the editor back to work. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment so has the community come to an agreement? Am I granted back my privileges to upload media or remain with that restriction? Also there were concerns about the letter on my talk page needing to remain, is that still in affect or is it okay to remove? Best, jona 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    I was reading through Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and don't see anything that prohibits your removal of the notice, and I believe that WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING would support that as well. However, there may be some items in some sort of WP:AE type of guidelines somewhere that I'm not familiar with, so I'm hesitant to say outright "yes you can remove the notice" (yes, I realize this was a community based situation rather than Arb based, I'm just using that as an example), but my belief is that you can remove it. As far as thread closure, it wouldn't be proper for those of us who have supported or opposed this to close the thread; so we must wait for a passing admin. who's not attached for that. I think the thread has been open long enough to be resolved - so now it's just a matter of WP:PleaseBePatient. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Proposal: inclusion of Male privilege in Men's rights movement article probation status

    full disclosure: I currently have a request in at WP:NPOVN regarding issues of content and WP:UNDUE at Male privilege.

    Because two editors who have been involved in ongoing disputes at Men's rights movement, Kyohyi and Rgambord (the latter of which appears to have left) have over the last month or so become involved in editing Male privilege, I would like to propose that this article be considered part of these sanctions; I feel it relates substantially to "Men's rights (broadly construed)" but I want to get other input.

    Maybe this doesn't need a formal proposal and is just discretionary, in which case feel free to let me know that's the case. -- # _ 04:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    for reference, here is the article probation information which I found in the list of general sanctions -- # _ 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    I was going to post this to the neutrality board, but it's more appropriate here, since UTCL has brought the matter to ANI. I apologize for the extremely long comment, but I have a lot to say.
    Let's clear up some misconceptions here. First off, I am not currently topic banned from any article as far as I am aware. There was a misunderstanding on Men's Rights Movement where I tried to clean up the talk page by merging multiple related section together; something went wrong, and the original sections I merged were not deleted, making duplicate sections. I noticed a few hours later and deleted the old sections, unknowingly deleting a new comment in the old sections. After that, I removed another user's comment on the same talk page (inserting text saying I had removed it for violation of WP:BDP), which violated WP:BDP (Calling a suicide victim a domestic terrorist as an insult). The person who's comment I had inadvertently deleted thought I was vandalizing the page, and asked why I deleted their comment; I assumed they were referring to the terrorist statement, and responded that I had removed it for WP:BPD violation. A series of miscommunications and misunderstandings later, and User:TParis hastily topic banned me without taking the time to try to get to the bottom of what had actually happened. Yes, I was rude and I apologize for that; I thought I was responding to someone who was indignant on being chastised for labeling an ideological opponent a terrorist. Now, if we can continue with the rest of this nonsense?
    I am taking a break from wikipedia, especially the humanities (shudder), but I received an email notification, so that's why I'm here. UseTheCommandLine and I already argued over this page, and it already went to AN/I, and there seemed to be consensus that she was acting out of line and POV pushing. She got upset and decided to take a break, leaving this note on her talk page "I am tired of dealing with sexists and racists. I am taking an extended wikibreak. Perhaps it will be permanent.". I found it quite offensive, as it was clearly pointed at me. Here's the deal. I have been an editor on wikipedia for a very long time; this is a fairly new account. I have contributed quite a lot both logged in and as IP to various articles, mostly in history and science. Only within the last couple of months did I become aware of the extremely biased Feminism etc... pages on wikipedia, and I brought the same perspective I bring to all articles I edit in removing content that violates various clear wikipedia policies, as well as occasionally removing content that just plain old makes wikipedia into an unreliable encyclopedia (Per WP:IAR). I am by no means a perfect editor. I have always edited in good faith, and assumption that has not been granted to me by many editors on the feminism related pages, mostly because I am not a feminist, and don't adhere to or blindly accept any feminist beliefs without evidence. Neither am I an "MRA", racist, or sexist, as has been accused. I am simply one person who wants to see BETTER ARTICLES on wikipedia about this subject. I originally found out these articles because I was curious about their subjects, and then disgusted at the quality of information they provided.
    One feminist belief is the existence of Male Privilege. There are quite a few very intelligent, (dare I say experts? Why not -- their credentials are no better or worse than mainstream feminist scholars), who argue for the exact opposite. UTCL pushed to deny those sources be included, and to remove evidence of the disagreement before, and she is doing it again. I have argued before, and I will argue now, that we should either have a legitimate (non-stub) male privilege and female privilege (currently a redirect to male privilege -- almost a slap in the face, really), or one article entitled Gender privilege. Both are notable and completely contradictory points of view, and no editor is qualified to determine which one is correct or which one deserves to be the main title of the page. Imagine the outrage if I changed the name of the article to Female Privilege, and just swapped the main article content and the criticism sections, changing a bit of the wording? I'd probably be banned for vandalism and POV pushing; but that sort of editing is perfectly accepted here if it's the other way around. There are other, similarly US and Feminism centric articles on wikipedia, such as White Privilege, and Christian Privilege-- which hardly applies in places like: China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Religious privilege, in general? --Yes, that exists, I agree, and that's the scope an encyclopedic article should cover. Gender is no different. There are numerous examples of female privilege in our society, and they are backed by WP:RS.
    Finally, I posted in the Male privilege talk page my intentions for the article, before being distracted by school work, and the mess over at Men's Rights Movement. UTCL is aware of my intentions yet has avoided any attempts at consensus building, instead seeming to want to "protect" the previous state of the article before my arrival (which was absolutely abysmal and contained numerous unsourced paragraphs, as well as clear violations of WP:Synth/WP:OR). I don't believe that the article needs protection, something that should not just be doled out willy-nilly (This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit). I merely think that UTCL needs to have some mentoring, as mentioned in the previous AN/I topic, as well as possibly having her edits to Male Privilege placed under moderation or whatever it is they do here. Maybe then we can build consensus, like I tried to the first time around, instead of having constant edit wars. Rgambord (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    Category: