Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 31 March 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement

I havent been following closely or participating in the discussion with the involved IPs for a while, but its on my watchlist and the situation appears to be spiraling out of appropriate scope. At least one of the IPs appears to have a COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've intervened, making my non-admin status clear, and tried to make both parties aware that their flagrant disregard for WP:Civility is inappropriate. The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits -- neither of them has the least clue about how to form a policy argument and the discussion has devolved into constant and voluminous mud-slinging and arguments without traction. Add to that the fact that neither seems inclined to apply indentation or other talk page style convention or organizational feature that might keep the discussion focused and on-track and you have a real mess. It's not exactly an article of high interest for me, but I'll try to stick around and oversee some adjustments to the page to improve its tone and verifiability a bit, though I'm dubious I'll be able to get the two of them to work constructively to improve the page between them. Snow (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me preface my next remark by saying that, as a fully-certified admin, I am fully aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NONASTYWORDSPLEASE, but still: HOLY SHIT, that's the worst-looking talk page I've seen in a while. Can we burn it, via MfD or IAR? Drmies (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the last rant and left a note on Uncle Karl's talk page. Who is the "other" editor? The 213 IP? I find it very difficult to find specific civility infractions in those walls of words, though IP 71.33.155.41's shouting etc is uncivil enough--their very layout is offensive. Anyway, y'all's efforts are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Short Precis by 213.66.81.80

I hope this helps:

• I really dont want to answer towards TRPoD because his antipathy toward the page goes back some months back and he represents a particularly estreme view of what the entire "promotional debate". Let's just say this is not the first time he has tried to strip the article. Nor is he immune from being warned regarding his aggressive edits to others' works. Just go to his talk page. I note he "watches the page", and stalks my talk page. For ex, I was tidying my talk page and he sent me a very "odd" message on my talk page a couple of evenings back (as if I was a naughty schoolboy "Your will be deemed to be wilfull" language.). And he posted this here, and raised the assertion that it is me with COI ---- at a time it was clear the ANGRY user was losing control.

• I have 35 years material science. I live in Stockholm. Swedish is my first language. On the page, I wrote the section (you'll maybe never heard of it), tribochemisry and the section dealing with pozzolanic concrete chemistry. So, there is at least a flavor of my knowledge base. I have no connection to EMC. As I understand from the AfDs, no one from LTU or Ronin wanted this page, because they have low opinion of Misplaced Pages.

• This said no one of real material science knowledge has ever questioned the page. Most of the comments have been novices who needed a greater explanation, which because of my love of the material sciences subject, I have willingly given.

• I hope this page is giving greater "exposure" to EMCs. Both in terms sf novice reader and expert readers. I also hope it is aiding to a much deeper resource on material sciences, which Misplaced Pages is very poor.

• The page already has a "B" rating. I wanted to improve it to a "GA" and even contacted an editor who I really trust called FeydHuxtable. See my talk page.

• This "incident" started about a week ago when a user called KARL attacked MY work stating I was, among others, lying, fake, and that I have no knowledge of the subject. As time went on he made a number of demonstrably bogus comments. When asked to state his sources, all he would do is respond with what you call "wall of Texts". I did not respond to them as they were TLDR.

• But, just as the Snows comments above show, if one throws a little mud, a little might stick. Throw lots, many times and it WILL stick. To the point now where Snow is proving the point by stating

"The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits"

• Snow: I will not be bullied by a poster posting TLDRs to be disruptive. Do you see how many times that user uses the word "ANGER" and "ANGRY"? LIAR, STUPID, FAKE (ALL in CAPS, so the casual visitor cannot help see it)?

• EVERY TIME I have chosen just one of the many wild assertions made, ANGRY user has then deflected (with more walls of texts / TLDRs). The very last post I made before Snow posted his comments, proved it. But now it has been collapsed. So let me show you how "bananas" it has been, AFTER an ENTIRE week of this ANGRY user SHOUTING AT ME. This is what I wrote:

Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:

"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."

"This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same."

This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again.

This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and persistent.

• Snow: you do realize that several days ago, he got an immediate LEVEL 4 warning for his personal attacks against me and yet still persisted? Nothing stops him. It is relentless.

• I refute any suggestion what I have written is "promotional". Indeed, please tell me where the section on EMC Activation and Pozzolanic concrete chemistry is promotional.

• There are only two possibilities: The ANGRY user, does not have any knowledge. But then why so persistent and why make such obviously odd points? Or the said ANGRY user does have knowledge and is playing "divisive" and being highly provocative and manipulative. Which, if so, all the more underscores it is Portland Cement industry "spook".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

i do not think that word "short" means what you think it means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's a "short precis", I daren't even look at the abovementioned "holy shit" talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

You were smarter than the rest of us then. Imagine the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Arc when the Arc is opened.Snow (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The incivility at this article has been going on for a year. You can see the heated language at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement"), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination), and also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin. User:Jono13 was very confrontational, and so was IP 213 which is clearly the same person. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

While I very much hate to throw in the towel so quickly on solving this dilemma amicably, new facts have come to light which rather tend to suggest that is a hopeless cause. Specifically, the editor currently operating from 213.66.81.80 is an established sockpuppet of the article's creator User:Jono2013, as per this SPI, with additional suspected socks. Both accounts have previous blocks resulting from this sockpuppetry, legal threats, and general uncivil behaviour.

Between the registered account and the IPs, he appears, for the better part of a year, to have remained consistently hostile towards all of the number of editors who have attempted to question the apparently promotional nature of the article and its dubious consistency with regard to WP:V, often leveling personal attacks against them and making accusations of conflict of interest, though he himself seems to have had at least tangential contact with the inventor of the product which is the subject of the article. Further, he refuses to keep discussion focused on the content and its consistency to policy, routinely targeting what he perceives to be deficiencies in the professional credentials of other editors and questioning their involvement in the article and talk processes, though he has been told repeatedly that such not relevant to content discussion.

It is my strong takeaway from my short involvement in the article and my review of the talk page and the article's time in AfD, that the editor in question lacks the basic neutrality on the subject, and requisite respect for his fellow editors, necessary to be involved in the article in a non-disruptive fashion. It is in fact my impression, and one I would dare to venture is shared by most of the other editors involved with the article, that any effort to rescue the article and move it towards a stable state consistent with policy cannot be affected while he is involved there and that a topic ban should be strongly considered by any admin who decides to investigate the matter further. The editor himself should try to recognize that his lack of perspective and the lack of trust the other involved editors have for him is becoming the main driver for renewed calls to delete the article outright, but I rather tend to doubt that he will remove himself from the process.

Edit: I should also note that the other IP involved in the most recent round of mud-slinging, 71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself, but that Jono2013/213.66.81.80's history of incivility and conflict with other editors very evidently pre-dates the involvement of that editor and in fact goes back to the inception of the article, which, along with the article for the product's creator and articles for competing products, constitute the entirety of his narrow efforts on Misplaced Pages. Snow (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Snow: I ask you to now please leave this debate. You have had more than your share of comment. The "latest round" of "mudslinging" (your words) implies by using the words "latest round" that I have "invited" or acted poorly against the enormous number of very hostile attacks made against me by ANGRY user. He is the one who was warned to level 4 - I was not. If you look at my edits to "Maproom" and "XFM Skier" last week, they were entirely helpful (I will post them here if you wish). I made it clear to ANGRY user that I would not respond to bullying by way of persistent TLDRS which accused me of being "FAKE", "LYING" "STUPID", on so many occasions half of it could be enough. You say "71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself" - that is way short of the mark of the attacks I have had to suffer and then get patronised on top. In the meantime, the text below might assist. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope the following assists

• Jono 2013 lived in England and from his posts was a retired biochemistry professor. I was SPI'd because I had collaborated with him very early on in writing the beginnings of the article, and had not disclosed this (I was in those days a complete novice to wikipedia) when I THEN I made the "mistake" of voting in the second Afd.

• Jono made the vast majority of the page. I was on business in Singapore anyhow. Then he disappeared. By all accounts, he collapsed due to the stress of the second Afd which had been brought on in a week. When I got back from Singapore, I culd not believe the nature of the Afd debate and so I made a comment.

• Go on my talk page and you will see FeydHuxtable asking me if I had seen Jono. I have not and I have not heard from him. I sent emails to his family and I got one back from a relative saying that apparently his wife had banned him from ever returning. From what I see, he has kept his promise to her first. He has never made any further edit on Misplaced Pages, which is a shame because he actually contributed to a biochemistry page which was his "core". Misplaced Pages lost a very committed and passionate editor. Jono made the mistake of being too passionate.

• One of the reasons I was banned included the fact that I was Swedish. Another Swedish user called "Swedish Gold" was banned also for being Swedish. Swedis Gold and I know one another in ex-professional circles and are acquaintances. He is placed in the Swedish Government. There is another Swedish user, who made an edit (and his IP resolves to the far north of Sweden). And he was banned for being Swedish from what I can see.

• I also add that the second Afd, a user who voted to 'delete was perpetrated by a bogus user masquerading as a professor at Berkeley University. The user "Swedish Gold" called him out on that. And rightly so. That was how "wild" the second Afd became.

• The demise of Jono2013 generated angry comments, all of which were deleted by those against whom the assertions were made. I understand the editor FiddleFaddle did email "swedish gold" last summer. "Swedish Gold" told me but I have not seen those emails. I believe Swedish Gold was very "upset" at the way that anyone Swedish was banned. I was also told that FiddleFaddle had even written an essay on wikipedia, "inspired" by the whole debacle. You have to check with him.

• I suppose because the technology is Swedish therefore (I am guessing) open to the innuendo of some sort of "national bias".

• After several months, I decided to add certain aspects to give greater detail as to its history and recognition (because in the Afd "notability" had been raised). I had hoped that maybe from time to time Jono2013 would see that I was picking up where he had left off.

• When it became obvious the article needed improving over and beyond Jono's original work - because he did not have the technical knowledge, there were aspects on the page which he never tackled in his days. Hence as I said, I have written the sections on Pozzolanic concrete chemistry and added to the section on EMC Activation, with reference to publicly available documents and my knowledge of this rather "specialist" area of Chemistry which ANGRY users refers to as (alternatively) FAKE (he uses the word in caps multiple times) and "Rubber Ducky".

• I added those section in direct response to a user request for a deeper understanding of why EMCs "do what they do". This is a "two dimensional" consideration because one has to look first at the cement compound produced and then why that produces "better" concretes (and the last past can be explained only by reference to concrete chemistry). I also add that "concrete chemistry" is also an entirely separate academic discipline to "cement chemistry", which confirms the "two dimensional" nature of the considerations. I wrote the section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry before Chritsmas. I was uncomfortable about the tribochemistry section that would be needed so I sought guidance before xmas and hoped someone would give me guidance on the extents of Original Research.

• So, before Christmas, having written the section regarding pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I posted several messages on Misplaced Pages asking for guidance regarding original research before I wrote the section on Tribochemistry.

• I waited 2.5 months hoping for an answers. No one responded. So I wrote it last week. And then, "all hell" happened. Because it is clear the scientific basis for EMCs are very real --- and so the only way to then disparage the page is to attack that aspect. You look at ANGRY userr's posts. It is all about "fake science". Coincidence?

• As for me, I live in Stockholm, Sweden. And I am not passionate about keeping this article. I am however passionate about people making grave accusations either that I am "stupid", or that I am "lying" or that what I write is "fake science" (all of which ANGRY editor repeated several times over). I think I have a right to be "passionate" about that.

• So if you want to Afd the article, do so. I may add initial comments in a third Afd, but beyond that, I am not going to make the mistake of Jono2013, by getting acutely anxious about losing my work. But if the article is lost, I will probably go to Arbcom and take it there. Not because the article is lost, but because I have been accused and the science has been accused and I do care about that - and from what I see that aspects is being "lost". I will also state, that I asked for guidance on Original Research nobody assisted me despite waiting 2.5 months, and that by contrast, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by a user whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page. I believe I will have "earned" that right if my worik is delelted when I have been accused of promoting "FAKE" science (in CAPS) and of being a "LIAR" (in caps) over and over and over again by a user who has never backed such serious assertions-up in any meaningful substantive manner.

• You cannot "cheat" science. Misplaced Pages can delete the page, but it cannot "cheat" science. It is real. 4.5 million cubic yards cast by 2010 for TXDOT demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because all the concrete poured is within specification. Unlike Geopolymer_cement, which maybe if the regulations are changed, might in many years (say, 10 to 15 years earliest) start production in any meaningful volumes (and even then, that is if one can afford the hazard, environmental and financial costs brought about by it requirements of copious supplies of 14M NaOH for its synthesis, by comparison)

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean one of the reasons you and others "was banned included the fact that .... was Swedish"? Are you saying that because if similarity in geolocation along with other factors, it was suspected that you (and others) were sock or meatpuppets or had an undeclared COI (relating to your place of employeement not your country) and edited inappropriately? Or are you say you and the others were discriminated against because you were Swedish? If you're saying the later, I suspect many like me will find this unbelievable particularly since you provided no diffs. It basically destroys any credibility as well as ensures I'm not going to bother reading anything else you said in this long statement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Hi: I mentioned it because I recall reading on a talk page somewhere words that were "And if you see anyone else Swedish who has an interest in cement let me know" in the context of banning contributors to any debate. You have to excuse me but I do not locate comments that were made on someone's user pages in May of last year. I don't know how. But I recall it clearly because Swedish Gold called me and was absolutely furious. Then I read it myself. I want to say this is why I do not have a user account - because my IP address is record and in Stockholm. Jono2013 is British and live in England. I do not believe that I have ever edited anything substantive during the Afd debate - I simply made an honest mistake (I was a novice) of not declaring that (when I added my comment on the Afd) I had helped start the article right at the beginning, which as I said, was when I came back from Singapore and could not believe my eyes (so I made my comment on the Afd). Swedish Gold knows a lot of people including academics in Berkeley who are very respected (who also know Ronin and "supportive" of his work with Prof. Elfgren). So he got incensed when a person on the Afd started masquerading as a professor from Berkeley. Swedish Gold exposed the fraud. It is all at the end of the second Afd. And then he got banned despite his "services" to such respects. And then I was banned even though I was in Stockholm. Meanwhile Jono2013 had already "collapsed" never to return... and FiddleFaddle got inspired for an essay about how experts on Misplaced Pages can be treated. So something "good" came of it - yes? Maybe you read it. But you need to ask FiddleFaddle where it is because I cannot remember its title. I hope this helps 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80, I suggest you focus on content rather than on user conduct. you have made a decent start to the article, but perhaps you should just step back, take a deep breath, maybe even a short WP:wikibreak, and come back, ready to calmly collaborate with other editors, to fix the issues the page does have. good pages for you to read are probably WP:DGAF and WP:DR. if you feel that someone is making personal attacks, it is better to warn them, and if the persist, take it here, rather than responding in kind. we're all (or mostly) adults here, so let's act like it. -- Aunva6 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tack for that! I have taken 2.5 month break after waiting for assistance. But got none. I think there is a deeper issue here, and if you see my response to Nil Eine above, there are deeper issues which FiddleFaddle exposed. The fact is I have added very high standard chemistry sections on the page, and I get accused of fake science, lying, being stupid (IN CAPS) about 30 times over (by a single purpose account) and suddenly the debate is not about that, but about banning me. Which is why I think that the only way to resolve the deeper issue (of the way experts are treated) is something like Arbcom, and hence sensitive editors like FiddleFaddle and FeydHuxtable could contribute constructively. Because this cannot keep happening. I am now the second substantive writer being "driven off" this wikipedia agape ---- when in reality my expertise is much deeper than Jono2013s ever was. And why? Well from my view it feels simply because I refused to be bullied into responding to multiple abusive TLDRs? The record is clear. And surely we must all agree no one should have to put up with a week of extreme bullying only then to be told "let's delete all your work anyhow and while we are at it ban you". The focus should be how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me. Serious science, real science has been accused of being fake, me a liar and stupid, - and I am being threatened with censure despite it being clear I was dealing with (or trying to deal) with extremely hostile bullying. The attacks persistence and oddness is a feature I have raised several times - and it speaks for itself. Yet I see no one picking up on that. This is pure Arbcom territory, surely? Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

not yet, but can you link diffs of the attacks? that is the key. people don't want to have to dig through edit history to find stuff, you should provide evidence. -- Aunva6 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

actually, I see what you mean, and I am mildly surprised that he/she has not be blocked yet, however, drmies appears to have his eye on things over there, and he's usually pretty good about such things. just ignore that IP user. -- Aunva6 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there: I am very embarrassed to say I have no idea how to make "diff/edits". I can format an article really nicely (I learned how to make nice chemical equations and collapse the section), but (ahem) there are certain things I don't know how to do. Anyway, as you say, they speak for themselves. The user page User_talk:71.33.155.41 shows that Jim1138 issued the level 4. But that did not stop it. I hope this helps. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I was wondering about that. here's a good tutorial: WP:D&L. perhaps you can go, and work on some other articles for a while, you seem to have a good handle on how articles are written. -- Aunva6 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Snow Rise dropped me a line about the IP/Jono thing. This edit suggests they're not the same--or maybe that's why the edit was made. Who knows. I read over that talk page again, and the edit history of both the IP and the Jono account, and I think that maybe the simplest thing is to bar both IP editors (and Jono) from touching that article or its talk page again, to trim the article down to a stub, and to start afresh. Surely there's others besides those two editors who care for cement. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi there, For the final time, I am NOT Jono2013 - and finally the penny has dropped. Jono did all his edits in England didn't he? I am in Stockholm SWEDEN - yes? This is why I do not have a named account...

  Also, CI am hoping you can read my comments above to Aunva? And now I have looked at the history from May of last year, can you also declare whether you acted in as part of the blocking me or removing all the edits of Swedish Gold so that no record of his defense of Jono2013 remains? Now I have looked at the history, your role should be clearly stated because then I am hoping you can tell me why, given you are good at blocking bullies, as Aunva says, you did nothing but allow me to be bullied for more than a week? This is not a debate about the page. Nor my conduct when I have done nothing wrong. As I said to Aunva, I want to know how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me.

  This said, if you do think me being 'persistently bullied is not important, then maybe you should say so. But I must say, I take this bullying that I had to endure very seriously and hope you do too. So I want this debate focused on that. Because I am the one who has had to suffer it. Thanks 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That other editor has been warned. The mudslinging comes from both sides. That you're from Stockholm doesn't mean you can't have a named account, and at any rate the Jono thing is immaterial to my argument: that this awful article is better off without the two of you. My focus is on the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    Drmies it's fairly common for a sockpuppet (i.e. someone intentionally abusing multiple accounts) to make comments in reply to the other account with the intention I guess as you implied, to make it seem like they're different people. So I don't think the post on Jono's talk page means much other that proving that this is either intentional abuse of multiple accounts or they are different people. I.E. That it can't be appropriate use of multiple accounts. But editing the same article or article talk page already rules out the later anyway.

    In reply to the IP, the comment you quoted does sound bad in isolation, but without context I can't really say for sure that it is bad. That's why I said I needed diffs. If you don't know how to provide them, you really should have asked before posting a long list of complaints backed up by zero evidence thats easy for someone to review. Besides that, if you don't want to go digging up the evidence, you really should consider whether it's appropriate to make the claim. The simple fact is a serious accusation unsupport by evidence is always going to make you look bad. At the very least you could have provided some context like you have now (paraphrasing what was said and where you think it was said) which would give people an idea of what you're referring to and where to look for it.

    Energetically modified cement apparently has a strong Swedish connection but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that everyone in Sweden is going to know or care about or that mostly people in Sweden are going to know or care about. (In other words, it's not like we're talking about Västerås here.) So if likely sockpuppets (based on behavioural evidence) have shown up in the past all coming from Sweden, it's probably a fair call to investigate more closely (but probably not automatically block all contributions from) new contributors who show up and fit that profile in the future. I wouldn't say it any different for people from Australia or the Los Angeles area (both of which have a higher population than Sweden) in some similar dispute.

    As for your claims about Jono, I don't see how we can know where they come from. As an account, no CU is ever going to confirm or deny whether the evidence supports their claims, and definitely not link the to any IP due to our privacy policy. So all we can know about is what they claim.

    Interestingly, if you look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013/Archive, it was suggested by a CU that Jono2013 is between possible to likely the same as Swedish Gold. We obviously don't know what the actually evidence is (and at this late stage, it's unlikely the evidence is even still available). But even presuming the user agent and other details are exactly the same, it seems unlikely a CU is going to conclude that they are 'possible bordering likely' if the IP details suggest a completely different geographical area, unless they also have a reason to think that the IP details may not give the person's actual geographical location, e.g. a proxy may have been used. This would suggest either the IP details can't be trusted or one of the people either Jono or Swedish Gold even presuming they aren't sockpuppets, wasn't telling the truth about where they came from.

    On the whole though, I don't really know or care who's a sockpuppet of who. However I do agree with others that the talk page of that article is a real mess. And it sounds like you care a lot about this article and the subject. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, given the history here it's probably not a good idea you get too heavily involved at this early stage. There are surely many people articles related to chemistry and material science but mostly unrelated to this article that you could edit. Once you have learnt more how edit and interact with others, perhaps you can return to editing the article in question. (If you have no interest in editing anything but the article or stuff highly related, this suggests a WP:SPA. While SPAs are not intrinsicly bad nor banned, they don't generally last long in articles with a history of problems and contentious behaviour.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, its useful that Drmies brought that diff up -- I had lost track of where it was to be found, but I had remembered the comment when I read the SPI. Note that the IP makes his introductory comment on the talk page on May 27. However, ten days earlier on May 17, in the midst of the SPI, his personal knowledge of Jono2013 is intimate enough for him to be the one informing us that Jono has "collapsed" from the stress of being harassed and has been barred from continuing editing on Misplaced Pages by his wife and that "We are all appalled at the constant harassment of Jono2013 and the EMC Page." And that's really just the least of the evidence; between the article's talk page, the AfDs, the SPI and talk pages of other users, I can't imagine many experienced editors reading even a smattering of the pair's posts could walk away with anything but the impression that they are the same person -- it's pretty cut an dry. If nothing else, the CU's finding that they geolocate to the same area shows that the IP's insistence that the operate from separate countries is more than likely to be false. I don't want to belabour this point too much, because action has been taken and we should try to move foreward, but given the editor's past ambivalence to oversight, I think it bears noting just how long and consistent his efforts to confuse process have been whenever he's called out for inappropriate behaviour. He has pattern, repeated ad nauseum (and again, immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the course of his involvement in this project), of responding to criticism (of him or his content) with disparaging and vitriolic comments (read his last comment in AfD from near a year ago and then compare it to his more recent behaviour on Talk:Energetically modified cement to see just how little he has learned to control his temper and not take disagreement about his edits personally) and then crying "harrasment" whenever this beahviour catches up with him, trumping up the the most asinine claims. Take his most recent claims that he has been labelled as having a "national bias" -- no one made any such claims anywhere at the locations he's suggested; he's misrepresenting the fact that other editors were on guard for additional IP's bearing the exact profile as two identities he had already assumed, as noted in the SPI. Whether this is a case of a victim complex actually causing him the believe this ludicrous non-sequitor or whether he is simply trying to confuse the discussion is really a rather moot point -- his behaviour is, regardless, highly disruptive and uncivil and it has to stop. There was a comment in his SPI by an editor suggesting that he should admit to his sockpuppetry (presumably before having the ban lifted); had that approach been followed, he would have one less trick to fall back on the confuse the issue of his long-running antipathy towards proper process. If we don't do better this time around, we're just going to be back here again, because nowhere in this discussion (or any that I've reviewed), has he ever admitted to the least particle of fault in his caustic interactions with others - he's always the victim. That approach is clearly not going away until it is abundantly clear to him that he can't keep that up forever as a means of avoiding consequences for his combative attitude towards other editors who are doing nothing more than applying routine process. Snow (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)yeah, I saw that, although, from what I can see, 213.66.81.80's contributions to the article itself have been constructive, albeit the refs mostly point to one research organization, but he DOES have other sources. he just needs to not let stuff get under his skin, and he should take a look at WP:MOS. he's not that much different from any other new editor, which is what he really is. -- Aunva6 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'RESPONSE TO DRMIES

Excuse me....the "mudslinging" does NOT come from both sides. The record must not be distorted. I repeatedly said to ANGRY user I would not engage in abusive TLDRs, only then to get the same foul messages back - accusing me of LYING (in CAPS), of FAKE science (in CAPS), essentially being a fraud, being stupid for an entire week. It went on and on and on and on! And yes he was warned to level 4 in one step and I congratulate the admin who did this! But that was not you. I have been persistently bullied for a week - and you do nothing. YET the moment it comes to discuss this, you are promoting the idea that the page is deleted and that I am banned. And make a pejorative statement "awful article".

• As I said above, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by an ANGRY user (he used that word in CAPS so many time) whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", bullied me to no end, whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page.

• The reason why Snow has made his comments is because of the SPI that was imposed on me for supposed being a sockpuppet of Jono2013. There is not even a record of it on my page. In fact, at the time it was done in such a way that I could not even appeal it. And NOW you say --finally-- I am NOT a "sockpuppet" of Jono2013.

• I don't have a named account to prove I am in SWEDEN. But when I tried to report ANGRY user here? After finally thinking I understood how to do it, and typing my complaint, I hit the save page button, to then be informed that I had to have a NAMED account. Do you see how helpless I have been?

Drmies: I believe this summaries your posture regarding me being bullied: I was banned last year for 3 months with no prospect of appeal, for being Swedish, only now for it finally to be concede I am not a scokpuppet of Jono2013 who was British all along. My IP address was a visible then as it is now. Then when I am bullied persistently for a week, because of defending bogus accusations of FAKE science (in CAPs) time and time and time again, despite that fact no warning was ever issued to me over last weeks dreadful occurrences, whereas the ANGRY user got an immediate "level 4", you now suggest I am BANNED from editing the page. Is that about right? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

chill out, like I said, just forget about that IP user, and let others deal with it. if someone told you that you needed a registered account to report to AN/I, AFAIK, they are wrong. in fact, even when this page gets semiprotected, there is an alternate page, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts. i suggest, that you be the better person, and let drmies and other editors deal with it. maybe you need to step back, and take a breather, do something else for a couple hours, and come back calmly. -- Aunva6 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aunva for your kind post. I only want to make sure the record is preserved because I was the one who was bullied. I have been through the most horrible week imaginable and I cannot have it implied that I accept that I was mudslinging. Time and again I said I would not respond to TLDRS. Time and again bogus accusations were made. Every time I picked one of them, I got gobbledygook back and even more accusations. It was just relentless.

For example, the said ANGRY user made the assertion not that everything I had written was refutable, but that he demonstrably refuted it (there is an enormous distinction in forensic terms). To say one has "refuted" serious and credible science (let alone proven science), you must be able to demonstrate that. Not by endless gobbledygook, but by solid referenced articles. What this person has done is make to very serious allegations without ever backing it up, bullied me no end and so that there is no "insult to injury" I do not want this debate "morphed" into something that makes me look equally the aggressor.

I hope you see these words not as someone who is angry, but someone who is very concerned that a week of extremely vile and persistent bullying is not mis-categorized, so that the focus is shifted.

Thank you again for your kind words Auvna. I believe that any admin can show that Jono2013 only edited in England, and the idea that three old farts like me, Jono2013 and Swedish Gold using fancy technology to "cloak IPs" (per Nil Einne) when half the time I'm just trying to make sure my glasses dont fall off my nose as I type, is seen for what it is. I struggle with a lot of this but try my best. Not all of us were born with laptops dangling from the Christmas tree you know.... I remember when computers had punch cards :)

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, it's not hard to figure out an ip address's ISP, and proxies are usually on commercial ISP's. keep in mind, we don't know who you actually are, this is the internet after all. all we know for sure is what you do here. I just try to Assume Good Faith, unless the editor in question demonstrates bad-faith actions. -- Aunva6 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that confirms how wet behind thums I am as I thought an IP in wikipedia stood for "internet protocol". It goes to show I don't know what an "IP" stands for on Misplaced Pages, I just see a lot people using it here and assumed it meant "internet protocol". Again, your greater knowledge causes my red ears... and yes, if by your comment, you mean the quality of my substantive edits, that much is I hope clear. I have always been very precise in my writing substantives which is why my editing on the page is so like a snail. But i do not assert unless there is a reference. The section I wrote last week on tribochemisrty was difficult because it is very heuristic and, as such, based on observable effects rather than provable causes. But I stand by my edits because the SINTEF report I referenced is clear. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, there is such a thing as being too detailed, or not having a balance of detail. you ned to remember that we're writing for the general public, not as much experts in the associated fields. and yeah, we refer to editors without a registered account as "IP editors" or IP's. you'll get the hang of things, even I am still learning new things, and I think the same goes for even jimbo, and he founded this place. -- Aunva6 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

this is a very interesting point. Misplaced Pages has very detailed articles in science which is way beyond "general public" level. Look at some of the wonderful pages on maths, chemistry, etc. So this has what has always puzzled me. Because it is clear, Misplaced Pages has a very serious side.

So this is what I tried to do: balance the need to show that the article is writing by someone who knows his sciences, and also try to contextualize the information imparted. The difficulty with "contextualization" is that it can be seen a "promotional" in my view. Because if I say 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete, well I would not expect you to know what that means. But if I said to you that is more than the entire Hoover dam plus also of its associated slipways and access roads etc., you then have a "mind's eye" contextualization - yes? So you learn two facts - one that 4.5 million cu.yds are cast in TXDOT projects and also that the hoover dam etc was (in your minds eye) somewhere in that region of volume. Now, that simple contextualization can then being interpreted as "promotional" for those editing Misplaced Pages who are "hyper sensitive" to this aspect. But I don't see it that way, rather I think contextualization aids the teaching process which is what a good encyclopedia should do. In other words, it should explain and educate and not just "state". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more then contextualizing the information that has caused the issue. The style and tone are both very promotional. The consensus was that it was promotional. Both IPs seem to be there to push agendas. Both are more then happy to claim they are not but say the other clearly is. The promotional wording makes editors immediately jump the the conclusion that the page it crap. The opening a week ago was bad enough to make me not want to delve into it and the contention on the talk page made me confident that all edits would be regarded by one of the two IPs as disparaging something. Other clearly agreed as it ended up here. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly no doubt that the two of them worked themselves and eachother into a frenzy with accusations of unmitigated bias without any sense of the irony at play. However, I think it needs to be said in User:71.33.155.41( Aka, "Uncle Karl")'s defense, for all of his bombastic approach before hand, he has, since the involvement of Dmries, acquiesced to calls for a calmer, more civil, and less-personalized debate. He's made but one posting since, has kept his comments focused on matters of policy and not directed at other parties, and has even made huge changes in how he formats his posts for the sake of making them easier to read to other editors. I don't think it's fair, at this point, to consider him an equal contributor to the continuing issues there. In that respect, the IPs are polar opposites in how they have responded to community involvement in their spat. Mind you, he is probably comforted by knowing his perspective is closer to the consensus as regards issues of sourcing and NPOV, but that can hardly be held against him and it doesn't in the least alter how striking the disparity is between how he has responded to feedback and how the other IP has. Snow (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You know that is self serving rubbish. Very promotional? You want to see "VERY promotional" go to the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. I simply tried to cope with multiple attacks and accusations of FAKE science. And that is as simple as it is, despite my spending time to answer your questions? Have you seen the page now, 22,000 bytes erased in 2 minutes. Without discussion. And you reverted Aunva's edits.

I think the page should be deleted 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He has now added deleting the talk contributions of other editors when they are critical of him to his repertoire. Snow (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I removed your deliberately flaming words which comprised words I find unacceptable in advancing a debate. Your words to me including "digging of graves" were not only sinister but uncivil. I am asking you to stop flaming. But since you reverted it, it is obvious you intended it. So what can I do? 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A warning about uncivil behaviour on an article that an admin just hours ago suggested you avoid, and the discussion of polices relevant to that situation, amongst others, is not in any sense "flaming". Nor are you empowered to remove the talk page contributions of other editors. As to "digging your own grave", that is a common English idiom; it means simply that you are working against your own interests. It has no sinister connotations whatsoever -- it is used when you are suggesting someone is acting as their own biggest liability. Normally I pass on comment of such issues non-native English speakers on such a matter, but I don't really think this is a comprehension issue for you --is it?-- and I'll not have you turn this into the newest entry in your habitual efforts to cast yourself as the victim on the most asinine of pretexts after being called out for uncivil behaviour. That behaviour is well-catalogued at this point as well and if you think these histrionics and hyperbole are going to cover you from scrutiny as regards your ongoing habit to denigrate every editor who disagrees with you in the slightest, I think you're shortly in for a surprise. Snow (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

proposal: topic ban

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

Having seen nothing to convince me of voluntary positive outcomes: I propose a 1 year ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.33.155.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, of course we will have to wait to see what the admins think is appropriate in the circumstances, but I'll make no secret of the fact that I doubt 213.66.81.80 will ever desist in his uncivil allegations against other editors on the talk page short of such a move. Having reviewed scores of his discussion postings the last couple of days, I can say that I did not see a single incident of another editor being on the opposite side of an issue from him that he did not take the difference of opinion to a personal, uncivil, derogatory place. He will clearly continue to obstruct any efforts he disagrees with and caste them in the light of being the result of nefarious ulterior motives and harassment focused on him, regardless of consensus or policy. He lacks the rudimentary patience, civility, restraint, and respect for his fellow contributors to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion. In short, he is a textbook bad-faith contributor; if I were overseeing admin, I'd block him indefinitely from the entirety of the project; he's certainly given little enough reason to believe he has any interest in learning policy and adapting his approach to apply the community's standards before his own in even the smallest or most centrally important of ways.
• 71.33.155.41 is, I believe, another matter. I think he has sufficiently rehabilitated his approach to the point where he should be given the benefit of the doubt for the present time. Since Drmies' warning, I believe he is genuinely trying to take policies that have been quoted to him into account, he has slowed and tempered his commentary markedly and has avoided personalized arguments.

On a final note - Good golly. Snow (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban on topics related to cement for 71.33.155.41 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on cement topics for 213 IP. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both. unfortunately, 213 hhas not really gotten the message, and even seems to have a WP:OWN attitude towards the article. -- Aunva6 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for 213. Editor has shown a lack of understanding of his actions causing disruption and seems to believe that it is other people whom are causing the problems. XFEM Skier (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both 71.33.155.41 and 213.66.81.80. Their interminable arguments are severely disrupting the article talk page. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80's response to proposal

• Comment: Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone. I have stated clearly that I will do all I can to aid on technical details. The one thing I am not interested in is taking a serious discussion about substance into a "side show" of personality. The only persno to my knowledge since this was placed here, who has made a number of accusations, is SNOW. I have repeatedly said, I will not get drawn into these. I also at the time said of user 71, that I would not respond to abusive TLDRS accusing me of lying, being a faud, of fake science and that the science was not merely refutable, but refuted. SNOW has shown time and again that despite my endeavors to keep matters on the substantives, that instead, the debate should be moved into my meeting his admonishments. I have not responded to SNOW at all in the hope he will moderate. In fact, if you add up the text, he has written probably 10 time more against me that I have ever said in response.

• But now, when a user (who for the record, claims expertise, and I am not here to doubt that, but merely check that I did understand him correctly) makes a statement that is factually wrong, the next step seems this. Although I am not going to respond to SNOWS comments, I have added technical knowledge to ensure accuracy.

• For example, my (latest) substantive exchange with XFM SKier show this. Do I criticize him for getting things wrong? No. I simply said "I beg your pardon" and placed the facts before his eyes with a reference. I said nothing more. I am not here to "make foolish" anyone. I am simply ensuring that the required expertise is brought on key technical considerations that others have raised. I even start my post with the words "Sorry this is long, but I am trying to meet your comments."

• As another example, when XFM Skier asked another question, I responded even with the words "I hope this is helpful, Kind regards" ()

• I accept there is debate. And welcome it. And I accept there a difference in points of view on substantives. But re 71. you only have to see his talk page User_talk:71.33.155.41 to see that he received an immediate level 4 warning and yet all of my responses were civil, but on the strict understanding I was not going to respond to his multiple abusive TLDRs. You only have to look at the collapsed section of the talk page to see how abusive he was. By contrast, during his persistent attacks, I did not receive any warning at all 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the user you are referring to I feel like I have to weigh in that your statements of our interactions. I feel like your take on them are fabrications in order to avoid this ban. First I never claimed to be an expert on the topic simply claimed that I had more experience then the target audience, have degrees in related fields. One of the first interchanges no major offense but made sure to belittle me a little to make everyone know who was smarter and the expert, it continues here and ending with this one . In general I don't care but to characterize them as you did above is just not the way I see them or for that matter other editors (user:Snow Rise) . Note also that 218 likes deleting comments on talk pages. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, all the exchanges I referenced, and the ones you referenced, were made without me knowing about this. I was not informed on my talk page of this and only responded when I read (this afternoon Swedish time) TRPoD's message to me on the subject-matter talk page. Regarding deleting comments on Talk page, I thought one could do so, and if not the case, then it is complete ignoramus on my part, and it was during the period of prolonged and sustained allegations of being a liar and a fraud and fake science etc by user 71, (which like I said, I did not get one warning for because I refused to be drawn into his abusive TLDRS). But I would be a liar to say that I was not stressed, but even then, as your references show, even during the storm of this prolonged attack by user 71 (which had been going on by then for a week), nevertheless in answering your substantive points, I was entirely civil to you. I said to you if you had an further questions just to let me know - because frankly I was, by then, "gasping" for the "oxygen" of a decent discussion. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave some serious thought to making a solid block posting composed solely of enumerated difs for scores of the above editor's abusive comments towards other editors, made upon zero provocation than that they questioned some source or claim being made in the article. After spending some time over the last couple of days reviewing his actions over the last year, I know that can be done, and I thought perhaps it might help to illustrate the disparity between how he is presenting his actions and how they have played out during his efforts to preserve the article in the state he prefers, especially as regards these comments:

• "Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone."
• "I accept there is debate. And welcome it."

But the truth is, I have hard time defending that as a productive use of time for any editor. Besides, it's clear that he is now trying to leverage my involvement by casting me as the latest in his long line of boogeymen "harrassers", so I'll keep this as short as I can under the circumstances as an attempt to starve that contrivance of oxygen. In any event, any editor who wishes to investigate the veracity of his most recent assertions and accusations can find all of the information they need on the following handful of pages, without much need for specific versions or difs:

• First there is the SPI establishing that IP 213.66.81.80, Swedish Gold, and possibly a number of other IP's involved in the article are all socks of Jono2013
• The Talk page for Energetically modified cement
• The article's first AfD
• The second AfD,
• User contributions in User-talk spaces for Jono2013 and 213.66.81.80; for the sake of space here, I decided not to pull out multiple specific incidents from these revisions but even short searches through them should turn up plenty of instances of the editor in question making uncivil and combative comments on user talk pages similar to those made the article talk page and AfDs above.

Finally, I'll speak to a few of your points directly, 213. Why would I have a personal issue with, and cause to attack, you? I only came to that article as a result of this very ANI. I had, and continue to have, no particularly strong opinions on the subject of industrial cement. The only person who is making these discussions about your personality is you. Aside from the other IP, who has been admonished, you haven't been called out by any other editor except for the purposes of reminding you to keep your comments confined to policy and avoid making arguments based on your perceptions of the knowledge, character, or motives of other editors, as well as other uncivil behaviour which you seem to feel your creation of the article and interest in the subject entitle you to. Though to be fair, every editor involved there has had to do that a time or two. In fact, perhaps the above links would serve you better than anyone --if in fact you believe you are the victim here-- to go back over your exchanges and see just consistently this has been your response to the involvement of other editors when their opinions conflict with your own in the slightest. How do you reconcile your opinion of how you operate here and your assertion that you are being set-upon with the fact that immediately above, every involved editor who has been polled --including those who, like me, initially reached out to you and tried to defuse the situation-- supports a topic ban for you as the best way of salvaging the article and sheltering other contributors there from your behaviour? People are lining up around the block to comment on your behaviour, and it's no wonder - for nearly a year now, you have gotten away with behaviour that gets most users banned within days. You are not being admonished because we get our kicks out of spending our valuable and limited time on this project making you miserable about your article (which, as Aunva6 points out, you seem to think you own), but because you refuse to try to understand WP:Civility, amongst other pillar policies of this community, because you refuse to respect the other contributors here and the process by which we operate. Your problems with other users here do not ultimately arise from the fact that they are agents of the cement industry or they want to break you down, or any of the other fantastical theories you have suggested -- it's mostly because of the condescending, confrontational way you treat people and your insistence on having everything exactly your way. I don't know, maybe you are an academic, maybe not. But one thing you are definitely not is at the podium of a lecture hall when working on this project. You are amongst peers. Act like it and you might find you are having a very different experience here. Snow (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look I do not know why you are laboring all of this but for the last and final time, I am not and never have been Jono2013. I live in Sweden and am Swedish. Jono2013 lived/lives (I hope he's is not dead) in England. I have not heard from Jono2013 since Early may of last year. I understand he collapsed because of the extreme stress brought on by the AfD. He went through 2 of them in a week. And he took it badly. I have only revived an email from a relative last summer, telling me his wife had banned him from having anything to to with this ever again. And from what I can tell, he has never returned. And that is all I know. I have not been to England for 12 years. My work is far East or US and recently a little in Africa. I have a much deeper knowledge of material science since than Jono2013 because that is where I made my money in California many years ago and now I consult for a living. Jono2013 was at least 10 years older than me. And yes, we met in Stockholm. I have never made a secret of this. I have said, I do not want to be involved in personalizing matters. I ask you to have in mind that I suffered a long prolonged attack for a week and I do not want any type of engagement like that -- especially when I am preparing for a business trip and therefore all things considered, I have devoted my remaining time to pointing out observations on the substantives. I have not told XFM skier "how to think" or "you must be crazy" or made any such comments.

I have NEVER been admonished for my behavior. Further, I have asked for collaboration several times. I have a very high regard for user:FeydHuxtable as my talk page shows. I also have a very high regard for a whole number of editors on Wkipedia --- especially the one's who "blow my head" with their knowledge of tricky difficult subjects. That is what I liked about Jono2013. He had a first class mind. And he contacted me because he had been pestering Ronin for a couple of years to write a page on here because there was a small article that was incorrect. Ronin and I know each other from years back, strictly professional, but he lives 100 Swedish miles (1000 kms) north from me and we have not seen each other for maybe 6 years - maybe more. Jono2013 emailed me having been given my address from Ronin. Jono2013 came to Stockholm and we spent a few days together --- old farts talking crap together but also talking science. We started the page, and he then went to England and I had no more to do with it until late September of last year. I never made any secret of this because there is no "shame" to it. When all hell broke loose over the AfDs I was in Singapore - I knew nothing about most of it but managed to make a contribution when I got back to Stockholm. Like I say, I knew nothing about any of it till I took a look at how the page was coming along and then saw the AfD which completely shocked me. So I posted a comment but I made an error because I was completely novice to state I had written a very small part right at the beginning. It was an honest mistake and one which I never hid at the time and do not hide now. To explain:

• Since September, I have added only certain sections to the page - largely response to comments made on the talk page: EMC Activation, I expanded with reference to patent and tribochemistry (the last part last week -- but it is all erased anyhow). Section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I completely wrote, including the reference to Hagia Sofia. Section on the historical significance of the California results, I wrote. The references to Lord Stern giving 2 lectures about EMCs (including the Robb lecture) I wrote (that has been erased too). I added bits here and there maybe, but largely that is it.

• I have only ever written on that page. Except to correct an entry about the Swedish Rock singer Tommy Nilsson, who is my next door neighbor ---- and I simply corrected some grammar on that. That's all. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's rather odd, given that the check-user at the time of SPI seems to have shown that Jono geolocated to Sweden, along with Swedish Gold (unsurprisingly). There's also the fact that you and Jono have an identical and highly distinctive posting style that is full of idiosyncrasies. You both post extremely long messages composed of short paragraphs of a few sentences each with a header and foot sections at end and long lists of bulleted points in-between. You both use ALL CAPS words interspersed with regular typography, when REALLY want to drive a point HOME, but only EVER in posts responding to when someone has CHALLENGED YOU. I'll let the editors here compare your texts throughout this ANI with those Jono in the first AfD and the article talk page. Most importantly of all, whenever anyone has ever (and I mean ever) dared to question your interpretation of a source or a matter of content, you both fly off the handle in the exact same way, questioning the credentials of the other editor and their right to second guess you. Let's look at Jono's response to someone in the second AfD:

" Excuse me???? WHERE is it promotional? It is discussing the phenomenon in a manner which is substantiated by over 50 journal entries spanning 20 years. Dont just use words, justify them. The journal entries you mention are just two of them, and are listed in the references. You've not written ONE scientific article let alone have any background in what is a highly specialized and rarefied discipline. Have you even read the talk page of the article? For godsake."'

And here's you yesterday, on the article talk page:

"XFM Skier: What do you mean "fantastic claims"? Will you curb pejorative language? 4.5 MILLION cubic yards for TXDOT? I spent an hour writing to you last week. I thought you said you were an expert???? How can you possibly use a pejorative term like "fantastic" when 4.5 million have been cast in spec for a formal DOT? Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ?"

Taking all of those evidence together, combined with the timing of your posts and Jono's, your shared aims, claims of expertise, locations, and a whole bevy of other converging factors, it's pretty clear that you are the same person. In matters of sockpuppetry, this is called the duck test. And you quack very loudly indeed, my friend. And if somehow you weren't the same person, it would be a clear case of meatpuppetry --which amounts to the same thing-- since your arrived on this IP account in time to support and repeat every element of his argument on the second AfD. But I tell you what, how about I request another checkuser and see if you geolocate to the same place that Jono did, just to put to rest which it is once and for all?

On a side note, please stop outdenting every one of your many posts. This feature is meant to be used sparingly in cases where the postings have become exceptionally narrow. The way you use it constantly in unnecessary situations is causing the posts of other editors to seem to respond to messages that they were not intended to respond to. Indenting is an important feature to allow others to follow the flow and chronology of a discussion more easily, and you are disrupting that function.Snow (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To say you have never been admonished, for your behavior seems consistent with your behaviour here, in which many have done you wrong but you have never done anyone wrong, and represents a reality that is different then the one percieved by the vast majority of editors here. It has hard to assume that your percieved reality is in good faith when you have shown clear lack of caring about what other editors think and say. There are numerous instances of people telling you to be civil both on this page and on the talk page in question. While maybe people should have given you more direct warnings on your talk page, it is obvious that you have seen these warning, because you even removed one that you did not like. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Request filed at SPI

I have made a request at SPI to re-open the case for User:Jono2013 so we can hopefully determine the nature of the link between that user and IP 213 more definitively. I encourage editors involved here to take a look at it, as it has details I think are germane to this discussion. Needless to say, if you have evidence to present one way or another, please provide them in the comments there. Snow (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist?

• If I was a sock-puppet of Jono2013, why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May?

• Jono2013 disappeared and never returned. His last edit was the 7 May. Check the record his ban was TWO WEEKS later. He never appealed it.

• for the last final time I am SWEDISH and live in STOCKHOLM 2000 kms away from LONDON as the plane flies. My next door neighbor is the Swedish Rock star Tommy Nilsson --- and that is why that is the only other edit I have ever made on this "project" as you call it. See final point I made immediately above.

I have said it this "project" before - we have a word in Sweden difficult to translate into English: LAGOM.

ps you say User Jono2013 "geolocated to Sweden". Impossible. You are reading what you want to see.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May? - There are a number of reasons for waiting. The length of time from May to September (5 months) is convenient for technical reasons I'd rather not expand on. Also, it's common to observe long periods of inactivity for people who use sockpuppets (sometimes a year or more). It could be because they get bored before getting a renewed interest, it could be because personal matters keep them busy, it could be that there was another sockpuppet used in the interval that we're unaware of. I've seen editors leave in a huff when they receive a short block, just to return a long time later with a different account in an effort to avoid scrutiny. Suffice to say that it's not really something that makes the possibility any less likely. -- Atama頭 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Short precis by maproom

I am pleased to see that the article is now receiving competent oversight.

I believe that the article should do more to make clear, in or near the lede,

• what "Energetically Modified Cement" is
• how it differs from Portland cement
• what the "EMC Activation process" involves

Maproom (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme and BLP violations

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

User:Atsme appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to defaming users and subjects she or he disagrees with and promoting those with which he does agree, specifically on the subject of Islam. He or she has repeatedly posted BLP violations and conspiracy theories, the latter exemplified by his or her recent claim to have filed for mediation on the grounds of TAGTEAMING (the evidence for this being that more than one user disagrees with him or her, so clearly it's a TAGTEAM). I warned him/her about this behavior, but the user waved it off and today posted another such BLP violation with regard to the alleged affiliations of a living person, which I will not repeat the substance of here because, you know, BLP. A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a SPA. I think that she really just doesn't understand policy. While she has ignored you I think she is expcting more of a hierarchical structure. Pretty much she exibits the behavoir of new users. Before any kind of a topic ban I'd really like to see an univolved party just peek in. Maybe this situation can be fixed without penalty. And even if it is address with penalty an attempt to amek it very clear why should be made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps mentorship might aid, if she truly does not know policy and doesn't really know that she's going against it as you say. KonveyorBelt 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if she doesn't understand policy she needs to be willing to defer to people who do. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I could be absolutely wrong. But I think she is expecting some type of hierarchical structure here. Maybe she might defer to someone uninvolved. They can try to help address her concerns in a way she can understand. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. But I think if you topic ban her then that will do nothing. I'm not sure she will really understand why she got banned. That's an invitation to do the same thing elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's irritating but she's not disruptive. She's trying hard after her manner. I, for one, hope that that's the worst that can be said of me. I don't see any grounds for sanctions against her and I don't see that it'd help anything either. She's not a SPA, she's just interested in Islamic extremism right now. A couple years ago she was interested in fish and had the same kind of issues. No harm, no foul, says I.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just made some pretty bold accusations against me, Roscelese. FYI - I'm a she. About your warning - I did respond to you, and asked what you were talking about, and I also asked who you were. Here is the page for all to see.https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=598929217 You never responded, so I removed it from my Talk page. I have not posted any BLP violations. What you're doing now is making groundless allegations against me, and I happen to be a living person. I probably should have brought your warning to ANI the minute I received it, but I didn't want to bother admins with something so petty. I have not once defamed any users, or subjects, or repeatedly posted conspiracy theories. As for WP:TAGTEAM, don't you think maybe the prior warning you posted on my Talk page and then ignored my questions, and now your groundless accusations here might explain some of my concerns? Are you doing this to me because I opposed the Islamophobia template on IPT, and you support it? I've had little to no prior dealings with you, yet here you are making all these groundless accusations against me. Unbelievable. You aren't even one of the editors I've worked with, so why are you even involving yourself with me? The editors I've worked with, and consider my mentors are User:SerialJoepsycho and User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They've been pretty demanding of my edits, and it sometimes felt like they were teaming up on me, but we always managed to work through it. They've taught me a lot, and I admire what they've done as editors, so don't think for one minute I don't appreciate their patience and understanding. I can even understand why Alf would think I'm irritating, and I'm sure he can understand why I might get that way at times. Serialjoepsycho has also been very patient, understanding, and helpful. He even gave me advice on how to file for mediation, and even arbitration. Now that's pretty special in my book. I don't think I filed for mediation properly, but it doesn't matter. We're working through the article, and they've both been quite helpful, although still very demanding. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I am certainly not a SPA, and I would never intentionally violate WP policy, so please stop trying to get me blocked because of groundless allegations. Shame on you. Atsme ☯ talk 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh this "you are violating BLP by disagreeing with my editing and you're lucky I didn't report you for warning me" is not the sort of thing we hear from a constructive user. I hope the adoption goes well, but like I said, you can only claim ignorance for so long. You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Perhaps this can just be attributed to a miscommunication. However it would be a stretch to call this completely groundless. There is a question of your behavoir. Consider not being offended about that for a moment. I think me and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: feel you are really trying here and putting forth alot of effort. I don't wish to put words in her mouth but I think @Roscelese: is kind of just looking for that effort. I'm not your mentor. Maybe Alf wouldn't mind that but you should talk to him first. If not however I do have to suggest that you consider @Konveyor Belt:s suggestion in that you do seek mentorship. Unless I'm mistaken you can find out more here: Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:Thank you. I just visited the Adopt-a-user/ page, and requested adoption. Atsme ☯ talk 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another bold statement from Roscelese: You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. Hopefully, an admin can explain what I have done to deserve such language, and treatment? Will someone please provide a link to the purported "BLP violation"? My understanding of BLP is that if a statement is true, and properly sourced it can be included. Do indictments and a plea of guilty that is directly related to the quote not fall under that category? Is it not clear right here on ANI that Roscelese is threatening me? My behavior may be "persistent in learning" which some may classify as "irritable", but it has never been to the degree that I've used profanity in a threat to anyone, and yet I am the one under the looking glass being threatened now. How could an editor who is consistently being attacked and disrupted in such a way not be concerned? Atsme ☯ talk 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's linked in the post and I warned you about similar comments earlier. Your comment about indictments is meaningless. ANI process is not a "threat," and you need to stop letting your paranoia overcome whatever willingness to edit collaboratively you might ever have had. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese failed to present a single diff in support of her accusations that Atsme is engaging in BLP violations. I've seen Atsme in dispute before and there were no cases of BLP violations visible. So I'd suggest Roscelese retracts her accusation or backs it up. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a diff in my original post. Either you didn't read it carefully, or you are unaware that the BLP policy applies to all namespaces - you can't make unsupported controversial claims about living people in talk space, user space, or anywhere. Now you know! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, the information in the diff link is not specific to your claim that I violated BLP policy. Are you referring to the quote from CAP, or are you referring to my question to you when you called Front Page Magazine a "fringe source"? There was no comment from you anywhere during that discussion that I violated BLP policy. Your comment was about NPOV. If I violated BLP, why did you not say something right then and there, and why are you being so evasive now? We don't know what you're referencing, and your blanket answer about BLP policy doesn't point out any violation specifically by me. Please be more specific. When you came to the ANI with a complaint about me to the point that you used profanity in a threatening manner, and flat out accused me of a BLP violation, and being a SPA, you should be able to back up your statements with direct links and factual information. You have failed to do that at this point. I think it is important in a claim such as this one that you be more specific about the charges you've brought against me. Atsme ☯ talk 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: The BLP violation is when you claimed that the report was written by people with ties to an organization considered by multiple governments to be a terrorist organization. That's a pretty serious allegation to make when not backed up by a reliable source, which is what our BLP policy does not allow you to do. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:, thank you for the information. The source I used is ranked in the top 10 of conservative magazines, which is a higher ranked source than the local newspaper that was used as a secondary source for the CAP report. If you'll look at the diff link, there is no mention of a BLP violation, only NPOV. I am inclined to believe there was no mention of a BLP violation at the time because there was no BLP violation. Had it been mentioned to me beforehand, I could have provided additional reliable sources. Atsme ☯ talk 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the BLP violation is Atsme saying that the CAP folks who wrote Fear Inc are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nation was quite dismissive of this kind of reaction, calling it "near-cartoonish". If Atsme wants to reduce the scholarship of Fear Inc she will have to find some other method. Defaming the CAP people is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Atsme, since you ask above for an admin to explain what you have done to deserve such "language" (the use of the "profanity" "pretty damn lucky", really?) and "treatment" from Roscelese, I'll try. What you did to provoke Roscelese's response above was to invoke WP:BLP in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. Do you believe Roscelese should only be allowed to criticize the editing of dead users..? Also, may I ask what you meant by asking Roscelese who she is? You mentioned that question above as if you're proud of it, and expressed resentment that she didn't answer it. "Roscelese" is the account name of an anonymous person, and it's none of your business who she is. (If you meant "Who are you on Misplaced Pages", in the sense of "If you're not an admin you can't tell me stuff", then that would also be in appropriate. You need to learn from experienced users, whether they're admins or not.)
• @Serialjoepsycho, I agree with you that Atsme "really just doesn't understand policy", but in my opinion she's running out of excuses to exhibit what you call "the behavior of new users". She's been editing here since 2011 (with large gaps, granted, and unfortunately I can't give the number of her edits, as X!'s tools seem to be down). I've been following her editing for a while — it's been substantial in 2014 — and have seen her receive a lot of good advice and information about how to edit Misplaced Pages properly, which seems to have bounced right off. I believe it may be time to bring WP:CIR into play. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'm just pointing out my insights here. It maybe time to play wp:CIR. But all I'm saying is if any otherway to handle this then that should be done first. If this wake up call here doesn't work then throw the book. Atsme is considering alot of the advice here. Such as to getting some help from a mentor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen:It appears you may have misunderstood me, so please allow me to explain. You said in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. When I said I was a living person, I meant that I didn't deserve the profanity and the threat from Roscelese anymore than any other living person. I am a human being, not a static computer page. I understand BLP, and I felt those same guidelines should also apply to editors posting about other editors. It's common courtesy. With regards to my comment about the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAP report, it is extremely important for any Admin evaluating this case to understand how it came to be rather than evaluating this case on a simple diff link that Roscelese included in an attempt to get me blocked. To see what work I've done, please compare the following before and after links: Before and After. And that is after half of my edits had been reverted, or deleted for reasons I felt were not solidly backed up by policy.

The sources I cited were as reliable as the CAP report, if not more so. I will simply point out what one of the editors who was collaborating on the project stated: Originally I was just going to move it into the "Funding" section under the CAP report material, but as I was checking the sources I realized that much of this material is problematic, both intrinsically and in relation to this article. I'm not opposed to doing to doing something with it in this article, but it's not clear what. Level three subsections follow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC) And that was the same editor who originally included the CAP report, and had second thoughts after I disputed it. We both knew we were dealing with controversial subjects, but I certainly did not intentionally violate WP:BLP policy. I acted in good faith, the points I've made are valid, and were backed up with WP policy quotes. It's easy for those who want someone removed to say the opposite, but all an admin has to do is look at the edit history. I may not fully understand the technical aspects of editing, but I am not incompetent, or disruptive. I am the only one who has added most of the positive substance to that article. It was a stub before I started editing, and that should speak volumes about this ANI complaint. Atsme ☯ talk 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:You've added a considerable amount to the article but the quality of your edits are in question. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Be bold. If we revert it you can go to the talk page and discuss it. You say your sources are golden. Others have questioned that. I also have to question if you are understanding what people are saying here. I understand you defending yourself but I don't really see that you understand that people are calling your behavoir into question. Not just your noobishness but your overall behavoir.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When did it become a WP violation or behavioral issue to ask questions when one's edits are constantly being reverted or altered? I was told after the first few reverts to take my edit proposals to the Talk page first, but the others were free to edit at will. I wasn't edit warring, vandalizing, hounding, harassing, using profanity, or being impolite. I was simply editing, and still managed to add another 50% to the article despite all the reverts and deletions of my work. User:Roscelese and User:Serialjoepsycho have done very little in the way of editing on the IPT article, and yet they are here criticizing me with groundless claims. I took the article from being a neglected stub to being halfway decent in spite of all the disruptions I was forced to endure by all the hounding. The edit history for both IPT and the Talk page will tell the true story. The sources I used are being used by editors all over WP, and they are reliable according to policy. The article was slowly coming together, but I'm worn down from the constant hounding of these same editors over and over again. They are following me wherever I go. The sad part is that it has disrupted my ability to edit and improve a WP article. It's just plain discouraging. I seriously doubt there will be further improvements made to the article now. My edits are being whittled away little by little, and soon there will be nothing left. The edit history will show that pattern, too. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah mentioned a while back on the Talk page that he thought IPT was nothing more than a front for Emerson, and that it should be redirected. Well, I just posted a question on the talk page about redirecting it, so we'll see what happens. My guess is that the article will once again become a stub placeholder for the Islamphobia template. No one else will want to work on it under this kind of pressure. In retrospect, the IPT article was probably never going to grow into anything while there are still editors using Islamophobia templates. Again, the edit history tells the story. If this discussion results in admins wanting to punish me for trying to be a good editor, then so be it. I only ask that you please review the edit history of the IPT article, and the Talk page before making any judgements. Thank you. Atsme ☯ talk 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm done. @Atsme:I'm following you everywhere? I've been on two articles that you've been on. On Anjem Choudary was the first. There on the talk page you bring up the IPT page well before I ever posted on IPT. You got a 36 hour block from the Anjem Choudary for your behavoir. Seems similar to the behavoir on IPT. My claims are groundless? Ok fine. I redact everything I've said here.

Please don't take ANYTHING I've said into account when making a decision about Atsme, since it's all groundless.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The block went to both editors for edit warring, and the other editor was reprimanded for name calling. You knew that when you made yet another attempt to make me look incompetent. The changes I attempted to make for Anjem Choudary eventually happened by other editors who agreed with the points I made, and the facts are on that Talk page as well, but that isn't the issue here. It appears that whenever a new or inexperienced editor first comes onto the scene, and tries to improve an article, they tend to make mistakes. That's normal. Every editor who is reading this paragraph has either experienced it themselves, or they've seen it happen to others. I learned my lesson about edit warring, and I have not been guilty of it since, but it appears it will haunt me for the rest of my WP life. The only thing I'm guilty of now is trying to do a good job editing. From March 1st until today, I have been accused of crazy things that are far from the truth, ranging from being called a racist and a bigot to being called an SPA, and noobish, whatever the latter means. I certainly hope the admins realize that I am not incompetent, that I did follow policy, and in the few places I may have misunderstood a policy, my edit was quickly corrected. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to defend myself in this forum. I don't fully understand why a few editors are now trying to make it appear as though I've done something terribly wrong. There's only one reason I can think of for all the effort that's being put into getting me blocked - I made the fatal mistake of trying to get the Islamophobia template removed from the IPT article, and from Misplaced Pages in general. Of course that debate is still ongoing. I won't even attempt to defend myself anymore. I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings, or irritated anyone, or if my "noobishness" violated policy. Please rest assured, it was not intentional. My intentions have always been in good faith, but a person can take just so much before they are forced to speak up in defense of themselves. I just wanted to do a good job making the stub articles GA, and stagnant articles come back to life with updates. I've since learned about stewardship, and what now appears to be guardianship. Again, the edit history and talk pages are where the true and relevant facts can be found. Atsme ☯ talk 17:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. What administrator action is being sought, and on what grounds? See WP:GRA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said in my original post, I am requesting a block on the basis of Atsme's continued posting of BLP violations after being warned. BLP also applies on talk pages, in case you didn't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:GRA (I wikilinked it but I guess you didn't read it?): When you say that you or another user did something on Misplaced Pages, always include a diff of that edit. This allows others to quickly check for themselves what happened. You should include the date and time as part of the diff, unless the timing is not relevant to your request.

Don't worry if there actually have been any BLP violations! Administrators are able to revdel unambiguous BLP violations, but also, if you include diffs, they can still see any BLP violations for which you include diffs. Administrators will then be able to make a decision on the merits of the evidence you provide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a diff provided for the BLP violation she is talking about and a diff for the warning she gave Atsme. Are you asking for diffs that show other BLP violations like the one that caused her to give Atsme that warning?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What you call "discussing sources" is Atsme deciding that a source isn't usable because of an unsourced alleged terrorist affiliation of one of its authors. As I said, BLP violations are not acceptable in any namespace. You don't get a free pass on calling a living person a terrorist because you did it on a talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The only one who has even mentioned the word "terrorist" is Roscelese in her frivolous attempt to get me blocked. Does that warrant blocking her? It is not against WP policy to discuss different organizations, and their reliably sourced ties, links, or connections. I have ties to FB because I have a FB page. Ok, so what does that mean? I don't run their organization, and their organization doesn't run me. Would I be a little biased to FB in a debate? Possibly, depending on the issue, so it would probably be best for me to recuse myself in such a debate. It's a common sense evaluation. It is a indisputable fact that one of the authors revealed in a video that he had been a Board member of the Muslim Students Association, video here, an association which reputable sources have cited as having connections to the MB. One source cited a link to actual documentation showing the MSA was organized by the MB. See here. To me that is having ties to the MB. I don't consider CAP a reliable source, and neither did the editor I was collaborating with on the article. I never said the CAP authors were members of the MB, or that they were affiliated with them, and I certainly never mentioned the word "terrorist" which Roscelese has done repeatedly. The CAP report is indisputably problematic. My discussion was about NPOV, and it was perfectly within WP guidelines. If this isn't a clear case of WP:Harrassment by Roscelese, I don't know what is. Can an admin please advise me if I have to file a separate ANI for WP:Harrassment, or can it be done right now based on her false accusations against me, her misuse of the Warning template on my Talk page, her refusal to have any kind of neutral discourse with me regarding her warnings after I responded and specifically asked who she was and why I had the warning template on my user page, and now this relentless, groundless persecution of me on ANI? Do I have any recourse? She has made it quite evident that she has nothing on which to base any of her claims. I am trying to introduce a new article on WP which requires my undivided attention, and this ANI is really cutting into my ability to edit. Atsme ☯ talk 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those links are reliable sources - posting them here is a BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really not a good idea to deny that you've done something wrong and then do it again in the ANI thread. Can we have some action, please? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin Demiurge1000 has already provided 2 responses that negate your claims. The time stamps in this thread are (1) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC), and (2) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC). The admin's summary was that it "boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page." Atsme ☯ talk 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think it might be better if you drop this discussion. Or rather, if you'd dropped it a day or two ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sources states specifically: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Are you saying a video interview with a person who was one of the authors of a problematic report is not a reliable source? I checked the credentials of the writers for both the sources I cited, and they aren't anymore unreliable or biased than the reports and sources that were originally cause for the discussion. Wiki policy encourages opposing views. One of the authors has a WP:BLP, and so does the source, both of which were discussed in detail on their respective Talk pages. If you are searching for real BLP violations, perhaps you should check out those Talk pages, and stop harassing me. I've done nothing wrong. My edit was about NPOV, and now I'm just trying to provide pertinent information in an effort to dispel these false allegations. The other source cites the following List as their resources, which include multiple reliable sources, and here is a list of their contributors . Please don't lose sight of what the original allegation is about; i.e., a diff showing a discussion about NPOV on a Talk page. WP policy requires neutrality, so if one editor is citing only criticisms by sources that harbor a prejudice toward the organization, it is perfectly acceptable to balance the overweighted article with opposing views, which is exactly what I did. To do so required pointing out why I felt the initial criticisms were biased, and not reliable. The other editor admitted to the fact the original source was problematic. Either way, the bottom line is still that there was no BLP violation, regardless of an editor's personal opinion about source reliability. These groundless accusations have to stop. Atsme ☯ talk 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On this side we have a claim of repeated BLP violation. On the other side we have a claim that is a groundless accusations. You can't both be right.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On my side, I have a claim that some people don't understand requirements for reliable sources, and some other people are under the delusion that requires a block. Let's face it - none of the people concerned seem able to provide reliable sources and then discuss them in an appropriate manner. Trout them all, send them to a topic ban after you do a WP:RFC/U. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Had I known the issue was specifically a BLP violation, or that it was going to be construed as such because of "unreliable" sourcing, (which I did not realize until now that inline citation was required on a Talk page during a NPOV), and if I had been properly advised about what steps I should have taken to correct it, I would have immediately apologized for the mistake, and followed the instructions. Again, I thought it was about a NPOV discussion. WP:Blocking specifically states: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users. I was perfectly willing to correct my mistakes, and it has already been noted above by my collaborative editor that I was not being disruptive. I just wanted to do a good job editing, and help take a stub article to a GA rating. I am now focused on introducing a BLP article for a renowned doctor, but it's hard to focus on my editing with this pending threat hanging over my head. I have always been cooperative, willing, and I would never intentionally violate a BLP. Atsme ☯ talk 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this now? Atsme has apologized, promised not to do it again, and she's working on an unrelated article on a neutral topic to get some experience with how things work around here. She's got a formal mentor, and I'm informally helping her with some aspects of her new article. The original violation was subtle and not obvious to newcomers, let alone established editors (I missed it the first time I looked), and this conversation serves no further purpose that I can see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection review - Political status of Crimea

I'm asking for review of my actions at Political status of Crimea as they come close to, if not actually, violate WP:PREFER. This is a continuation of the saga reported at WP:ANI#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country and elsewhere. I protected Republic of Crimea (country) yesterday due to the edit war going on there as a result of Dennis's close. Part of that edit war included User:Incnis Mrsi restoring the article, changing the scope a bit and then moving it to a new title. This was then all reverted by others. As I had protected the article Incnis Mrsi then simply did a copy and paste move of the old article to Political status of Crimea. I reverted this and protected that page as it seems an end around our processes and a backdoor way to ignore Dennis's close that may escape all attention. Once my protection has worn off they simply reverted me. I think my actions are justified in the circumstances but given the unusual circumstances I invite review. More admin eyes at this wouldn't go amiss anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Very proper actions on your part, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably merge this discussion with the one immediately below but it's obviously not my place to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sysops!

In short, you can see a content disruption and abuse of privileges by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who used it, namely WP:page protection, to degrade Misplaced Pages, specifically to obstruct a new article creation and push politically biased redirects (although probably without an explicit intent). Henceforth I ask for urgent intervention. The conflict shares its beginning with the scandal around “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but after Dpmuk’s actions it became a separate case. The relevant part of story is as following:

1. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) redirected Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Republic of Crimea.
2. Users Tibet2014 (talk · contribs) and XavierGreen (talk · contribs) reverted Dennis Brown’s action and his supporters.
3. I entered into edit war as the third side, by moving the article to Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), rewriting it to match the new scope.
4. RGloucester (talk · contribs) argued that my page move is not backed by a consensus, but explicitly clarified that sees nothing wrong in creation of the “Political status of Crimea” article.
5. RGloucester reverted my page move, so, Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) became a redirect as a standard page move side effect.
6. Dpmuk protected “Republic of Crimea (country)”, citing edit warring (I don’t disprove the reason of this single action, of course).
7. When I came back, the original article was protected. The only thing I can do was overwriting an (inadvertently created) redirect at “Political status of Crimea” with a relevant article. Hence a new article, with a new page_id, was created. It had noticeable chunks of recently created content, that wasn’t ever obstructed by editors, and indeed implicitly approved by RGloucester.
8. Soon at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expressed certain concerns about spawning of articles citing various multiletter acronyms. One can easily check that nine such articles already existed, and if the tenth is not sufficiently good, then it is so because started to be built only recently.
9. Dpmuk overwrote “my” article with another redirect to Republic of Crimea, a Russia’s federal subject, apparently prompted by No_such_user and trying to mimic Dennis Brown, but without understanding the situation. This redirect might deserve WP:Redirect#DELETE under points 2 and possibly 5, but in any case, it is grossly confusing and this edit certainly would be branded as a politically motivated WP:vandalism were effected by an IP or a newbie.
10. Dpmuk protected the page (a new article a minute before that) with a nonsensical explanation To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country), then dodged my attempt to discuss the matter and continued to obstruct the new article.

I do not deny that acted as a minor participant in the known edit war, in “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but Dpmuk’s actions on “Political status of Crimea” were purely disruptive and grossly incompetent since, before Dpmuk, there never was any war (I repeat: RGloucester stated that doesn’t object against a new article). A person who will resolve the problem on his/her own responsibility, without deliberations and protractions, will earn my respect, and possibly one of several reasonable users too. Independently, I ask somebody of smart (and sufficiently courageous) sysops to watch both the article and my user_talk, to deter possible further Dpmuk’s disruptions.

The offending person is notified both of the abuse (2 hours ago) and this discussion. The title Political status of Crimea, a hot topic, as well as its aliases recently created by me, namely Crimea question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crimean question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), now point to another article in a manner suggesting that Misplaced Pages unilaterally supports the annexation.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Only 1 person tried to do things unilaterally, and now they're here because they didn't get their way. ES&L 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I see from you is edit-warring followed by a failure to even attempt a discussion (saying "I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community" doesn't count). Then you bring it to the drama board, with an accusatory thread title (which is generally frowned upon). This doesn't reflect well on you. -- Atama頭 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Incnis Mrsi might be so-and-such bad, but the incompetence is an incompetence, and the abuse in an abuse. Dpmuk saw a content fork? Perhaps. What a competent admin should do in this situation? I’ll answer:

1. Check whether an obvious fix is possible. In this case it wasn’t, because Dennis Brown’s “closure” was under a heavy criticism, if only because the discussion was interrupted prematurely.
2. Identify whether the internal copyright was infringed. I hint: it wasn’t.
3. Identify whether less obvious fixes are possible. Yes, they were: merging to 2014 Crimean crisis, for example, because all this stuff originated from there. Or a merger with accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
4. Try to discuss these less obvious fixes. You can easily check whether Dpmuk, or something else, attempted something of that sort.

Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins such as Dennis Brown (this is similar to that I saw in ru.wikipedia; you can ask user:Ymblanter about that as he saw it too and even took part for some time in his previous life), sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing in an acceptable way during several hours, preferring to babble about accusatory titles, unilateral actions, and so. I detest such conduct and do not attempt to earn a respect of most of this people. Yes, I “acted unilaterally” and didn’t evade responsibility for it, unlike most of you who ever hides behind someone’s back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is a senior administrator? Is there a SRfA for that? I've heard of Chief Administrator, that being Courcelles, but neither Chief Administrator nor Senior Administrator exists. And if there were one, well Dennis Brown is still quite an administrator novice having not even reached 2 years on the job yet. Dennis isn't respected for being a "Senior Administrator", he's respected for making respectable decisions and acting in a respectable manner. There is no reason not to mimic Dennis. He's very often cited as containing an element that is sorely needed in most administrators. If Dpmuk, who has seniority over Dennis, wanted to mimic Dennis, it's not because he's a senior admin. It's probably because Dpmuk sees some merit there. So please, save your logically fallible and demonstrably untrue accusations to yourself.--v/r - TP 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2009 and I still don't consider myself a "senior" anything. -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins... sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing..."

You might have a legitimate case, Incnis Mrsi, but you do realize that you are coming to the Administrators' noticeboard and making broad generalization about how ineffectual and cowardly you think admins are. This finger pointing will not get you the result you are looking for. I'd adjust my approach because you are insulting the people you are asking to help you. Liz 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In Incnis Mrsi's defense, this really is the best place to bring this matter. We don't have a noticeboard specifically for reporting administrator misconduct. Your advice about not insulting administrators is good, though I try not to take such comments too personally (even though I'm surely included personally in this particular insult). Incnis Mrsi is clearly upset and I view everything they're saying with that in mind. However, having said all that, it looks like this is ending up as a rant and won't lead to anything productive. Incnis Mrsi got off on the wrong foot to begin with by threatening an administrator if their demands were not met (which was somewhat circumvented by the admin asking on this noticeboard for a review of the protection) instead of discussing the issue civilly as they should have. This is clear battleground behavior and Incnis Mrsi is going to need to take it down a notch if they want to be taken seriously. -- Atama頭 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, Atama, I was trying to be helpful! Liz 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've never seen you not trying to be helpful. :) -- Atama頭 03:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m not especially upset. This community is rotten: several years ago a guy making his edit war with the help of page protection feature would certainly be ostracised, even having a legitimate pretext for his actions. Now the guy who put a bunch of rubbish to “… summary” fields, pushed his web interface several times, and eventually protected the page indefinitely, in an apparent attempt to win the favour of Dennis Brown, is tolerable. This guy already demonstrated an outrageous misunderstanding of wiki when implied that I have to ask for a community consensus to reuse certain Misplaced Pages content in a new article. You, gregarious beings, read it because you accustomed to hide behind each other and nobody is willing to intervene in conflicts of such kind on his/her own responsibility. Misplaced Pages shall cleanse itself of it, or lose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we arn't hiding behind anything. We don't like being bullied by your temper. You came here making wild accusations without an ounce of credibility to them, demanded blood, and then proceeded to make wilder accusations about all of us. It's your behavior that has tuned us out to your cry for help. You are responsible for the response you're getting. Had you come here with a calm head and laid out just the facts without any additional commentary or drama, then we might have given it a careful review. Similarly, had you approached Dpmuk without the threats, he may have given you a polite response or considered another solution. Your anger, threats, and accusations are the root of all of this.--v/r - TP 17:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, only one person tried to do things unilaterally: the admin. He cannot block a page simply because an editor dissents. The editor can in his own right create a completely new article if he wishes so. Per WP:FIVEPILLARS he doesn't need to ask permission or seek consensus when creating a new article (see also WP:BEBOLD). I, too, agree with @Incnis Mrsi that this article has all the merits to be a standalone article. Do I have to ask permission to create Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol? No I don't. WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH gives me the right to do that. But this admin went in and blocked the guy that had a differing point of view by unilaterally blocking the article indefinitely without any basis. That seems extremely harsh for a page with only 8 edits of which 3 were performed by the admin himself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that he did not "create a new article". He moved an article that was merged to a new title and expanded the scope, which is an unacceptable way of doing things. If he had just gone and created Political status of Crimea, then there would not've been this nonsensical issue. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What namely became “unacceptable” after I overwrote the redirect? There is a significant extent of content duplication in Misplaced Pages, especially on loud international conflicts. Yeas, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but no community consensus ever discouraged either “Political status of Crimea” specifically or such kind of articles in general. Wee see no precedent of a negative response. BTW, in our brief conversation you was rather supportive. If one felt the article is redundant, then s/he could use {{merge to}}, AfD, or notifying editors of other articles via talk: pages, before applying the page protection. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that Misplaced Pages should have been invited at today's G7 meeting on Crimea then. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one in Amsterdam wants to see a bunch of geeky slobs fouling up the city. Come on, Count. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Under what basis did you protect this indefinitely? He only reverted it twice so he did not violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, I just reviewed the page history and I only see one edit war that involves you as an admin and another editor. Since when can administrators silence editors that dissent? I don't see your action as justified:

1. first because the edit war only included two people,
2. second because you were one of those two persons,
3. third because there were no violations of WP:3RR, and
4. fourth because there are other venues (such as WP:AN/EW and WP:RFPP) but you chose to unilaterally block the page indefinitely.

Even worse, you opened a request at ANI and I'm now being told that since this discussion is ongoing here at ANI that I can't request the page to be unprotected because of this. You are an admin. You must use the tools you were given with extreme care. I think you erred this time.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support actions by Dpmuk and Dennis Brown. Editors who want to urgently tell the world the true facts should use some other website because articles follow due process. Protecting a page indefinitely (meaning until the fire is put out) is doing the edit warriors a favor because the alternative would be blocking the editors who are trying to workaround the standard procedures. The above claims of "involved" are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your assessment is incorrect. Per WP:EDIT, one of our core policies, "Misplaced Pages is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better it is." Then, a little bit further down, "Please boldly add information to Misplaced Pages, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles." Furthermore, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, another policy, Misplaced Pages does not follow "due process" as you attempt to assert. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• And WP:CONSENSUS trumps all of that, which defeats your entire argument, and works against what Incnis Mrsi was trying to do. -- Atama頭 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please show me where is there consensus to not create this article and to redirect it to Republic of Crimea. There is none. Understand now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Replies to some of the points above.

• The protection was indefinite not infinite. I fully expect for the protection to be lifted be either myself or another admin once there is agreement on the way forward.
• Anyone claiming there wasn't an edit war, or that the only edit was involved me and was at Political status of Crimea should take a look at the history of Republic of Crimea (country). It's pretty clear that Incnis Mrsi's actions at Political status of Crimea are a continuation of that. Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection" where they admit they'd do the already reverted move again if they could. The fact that they then did it by the back door should not allow the action to escape scrutiny and this is what I acted to stop.
• As I said when bringing this issue here I was aware that my actions could possibly be seen as being against WP:PROTECT. When I did the first short protection I didn't ask for review because it didn't seem worth it for such a short protection. When I did the longer protection I asked for independent review to confirm my actions were reasonable as I accept they could appear to be against our policies - although I believed they were not.
• I am aware that you don't normally have to get permission to create a new article but here there was a "consensus" that there shouldn't be such an article and in those circumstances we do generally require a new consensus before creation. I could also point you at WP:BRD. You tried boldly creating a new article by moving and re-purposing the old one. This was reverted. At this point it would have been normal practice to discuss rather than attempt to do it again by the back door.
• Anyone that thinks I'm doing this to gain favour with Dennis Brown is very much mistaken. I saw an edit war, I acted to stop it. I saw an attempt to, what would be seen by many editors, continue that edit war by the back door so stopped that.
• As it happens it appears obvious to me that Dennis's "solution" is unlikely to be the long term solution. However at the moment it's the only thing we have so that's what we go with and the stability it brings about is a good thing. I'd urge all editors involved to continue the discussion and, possibly, come up with a new consensus. At that point articles may well be unprotected but it seems clear to me that any unprotection before that point is just going to result in edit warring.

—Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that prevents the subject of this article from being created. NONE. There is no consensus to make the subject of this article a redirect to Republic of Crimea either. I hereby formally request that you show us this supposed consensus that you refer to. Whatever the user did is irrelevant 'cuz this is an entirely new subject that can be developed to become something intrinsically and fundamentally different than all other articles. You have been shown precedents for this. Want a better solution? Unprotect it and move it to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol and let us develop it the same way that we have developed Political status of Puerto Rico and all others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest developing it in your user space, in the draft namespace, or somewhere. This will enable editors to see if it significantly different to what was at Republic of Crimea (country) and / or to see if there is a consnesus for such an article to exist. Seeing the comments in the merge discussion I do wonder whether such an article may be the best way forward but personally I'd like to see consensus for it before unprotecting and it would probably be easiest to get a consensus if people can see a draft version. At the moment I strongly suspect that unprotecting will only result in more edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself so that you can understand my point of view: when that article was created it was about the independent country. But we already have that covered at International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. However, since the article was protected, I have not been able to evolve the article to its natural form: an article about the political status of the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject and the city of Sevastopol as a federal city. See where I'm going now? Unfortunately, due to your protection, I'm inhibited from creating such article because if I do so other admins will say I'm trying to violate consensus, or whatever. So, what I'm asking you is to unlock it and let me perform these new changes which would make the article unique. I believe that my solution is reasonable and will let us move on and create an encyclopedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Dpmuk: here it is: User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox. I think this is a reasonable solution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Ahnoneemoos I agree that at first glance appears a good start which is quite different to the problem article. Did you copy some of the article from other places? If so you'll need to be careful with WP:ATTRIBUTION. @Dennis Brown: to see if he's happy that this doesn't go against his close - I don't think he'll mind but trying to reduce the chances of an edit war in case this does happen. Otherwise if there's no objections I don't see a problem with this happening. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I trust my peers to decide. I know people find it hard to believe, but I really have no POV on the subject matter. I came in, read consensus, made the call. My honest opinion is exactly what I wrote, it would have been cowardice for me to close any other way, to simply avoid controversy. I completely understand (and respect) opinions to the contrary, but there are clear policy based reasons for the close, even if I was extraordinarily (and uncharacteristically) non-verbose. What the community does with it afterwards is up to them, whether it is to support, revert, change, etc. I really don't concern myself with that. If the consensus changes, so be it. If they say I made a mistake in procedure, I will learn from it. If I'm insulted and defamed, honestly I just ignore it. I've seen a lot of claims to the contrary, but for me, closing is a very detached and unemotional thing, a necessary function foisted upon experienced editors. My opinion as to the new article is irrelevant. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the wisest thing to do would be for an administrator to delete the redirect at Political status of Crimea, and allow for a new article on the subject to be developed independently, and subject to consensus-based discussion and review by other editors. I would advise against the title

“Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection"… the action to escape scrutiny” – rolling on the floor laughing on your administrators, en.wikipedia. Does the text (quoted by Dpmuk, but without presenting the diff) of my edit summary demonstrate a plausible intent to escape scrutiny? Or, maybe, the initial proposal discarded by Dennis? Or is this thing an escape of scrutiny, really (note the edit is dated before I rolled Dpmuk back the last time)? The people who really have some weight in this community should walk with all their crowd to user talk: Jimbo Wales and beg your founding father to relieve you of all this ridiculous “administration” and appoint a dozen of smart senior admins (I’d recommend user:Ymblanter, user:Bbb23, and user:Reaper Eternal to be included) capable to interfere with various heroic actions of sysopped boys/girls next door. If you will leave actual contributors under an unchecked heel of the latter for a prolonged time, then you’ll remain admins over imbeciles and spammers only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, Incnis Mrsi made this edit making Crimea question a re-direct to an old/deleted version of his Political status of Crimea article and pipe linked it into Crimean Peninsula with this edit. I'm not going to waste time figuring out what's going on here, but that doesn't look good to me. (I've got rid of the weird re-direct to the ex-article) DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the protection, but the current redirect located there is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Right now, if you want to view the article, it sends you to Republic of Crimea; that is, to a subject of Russia. It should be changed to point to Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean crisis. CodeCat (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the redirect on Crimea question to 2014 Crimean crisis. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the current NPOV-violating redirect is placed by the same person who indefinitely protected it. Placed two times, exactly the same redirect. The second time after this person was explicitly notified that this redirect does not conform to certain established rules (see above, p. 10). Edit warring by Incnis Mrsi is bad, but not because it is generally discouraged, only because Incnis Mrsi hasn’t the page protection feature. Edit warring by Dpmuk is good, because he has the page protection feature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE - International recognition of the Republic of Crimea has been moved to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

New editor with CIR, BLP, COPYVIO issues

Could someone please have a nice, quiet chat with brand new editor User:Daffyduck1234? He's been adding copyvio images to pages (IMDB images uploaded to Commons as "own work" and then added to article here), adding unsourced non-consensus material regarding the death of Margie Hines, creating sub-stub articles with a single sentence and no references, and so on, and seems reluctant to listen to what's on his talk page -- instead he just bulls ahead. BMK (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to bring this, which I think could possibly be a self-portrait, to the attention of whoever talks to the editor. BMK (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this person might be this guy at first, but the pattern isn't quite right. Sigh, I'm becoming a jaded admin seeing socks everywhere. :( -- Atama頭 01:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that one of the drawbacks of the job, becoming jaded.

The young man just dropped a warning on my user page (not my talk page), so he's certainly seeing the comments I'm leaving for him, even if he's not taking them into account. BMK (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the record, BMK. You have been warned. Anyway, I'll see if maybe another person chiming in helps, sometimes people think that if one person is addressing their misbehavior, it's just some jerk, but if someone else comes in maybe there's a legitimate complaint (although it can also mean the second person is the jerk's henchman or something). But it's worth a try. -- Atama頭 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have made any difference - he created two new crude unsourced sub-stub articles. I'm afraid that this is going to come down to a competency block, since I'm not sure that the editor is understanding what he's being told. BMK (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

One step forward, but then a step sideways: The editor is not uploading copyrighted pictures to Commons now, just very bad photos of streets taken from inside a car. These purport to be (and may well be, I don't know) streets named after the subjects of article - i.e. "Pennell lane" for William Pennell - and they are being added to to the subject's articles without citational support or explanation. He also continues to add unsupported birth and death dates to biographical articles - again, these might be accurate, and he might be getting then from a source, but no source is listed. There's also been no response on the talk page to the various comments, including now a final warning from another editor. BMK (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A comment on his talk page from the editor, but it's not encouraging. Under the section title "I'm tyring to he helpful": "Stop talking to me I created Misplaced Pages and I forbid blocking my edits."

Unfortunately, I think it's time for a competency block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. BMK (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely fair, BMK. He actually said "I'm trying to be helpful". Not that I'm against Atama's block or anything. Good block. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish (may I call you that?), I think it's quite fair when "I'm trying to be helpful" is paired with "Stop talking to me" (discussion is the essence of collegiality and impossible without it), "I forbid blocking my edits" and "I created Misplaced Pages", which are both either trolling or delusional. (P.S. If you're responding to the misspelling of "trying", that was a typo on my part.) BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed it was a typo, after I checked. But I was actually responding to the misspelling of "trying" as "tyring" and the misspelling of "be" as "he", in a quote of five words. I'm sorry, but the impression I got before checking (which not everybody does) was that you were showing up the user as a careless typist, and I didn't think it should be left without comment, to make the same impression on others. But it's moot, the user has been blocked, and not for careless typing. I call you BMK, so feel free to call me anything you like, down to and including "B". Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not a touch-typist, so my rate of typos goes up the faster I try to type. Please rest assured that I was attempting not to characterize Daffyduck1234's typing or spelling, but to point out the content of their talk page comment, which was rather strange.

As you say, water under the bridge at this point. BMK (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Marnette D, whose opinion I respect, appears to think that we're being trolled. This is quite possible, as at some point extreme incompetency and trolling are very difficult to tell apart. It actually doesn't matter all that much, though, since the end result is the same: time and effort are sucked up and the project is not improved. BMK (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about Hanlon's Razor... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I've just run out of AGF. The brand new editor User:Sandboxxxxx is quite obviously a sock of Daffyduck1234, making the same edits on Margie Hines, re-creating the speedily deleted sub-sub-stub Buddy red bow (which I've again marked for speedy deletion). Competence or trolling, eh, who cares, the editor isn't going to listen, and isn't going to play by the rules, so both accounts should be indef blocked. BMK (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur about the trolling. The "final warning" was received at 16:12, 26 March 2014 and after that warning, they performed edits that added incorrect information then immediately reverted, at Margie Hines and Elbridge Bryant. It looks to me like taunting, where they can say "I did it again but I reverted right away so you can't touch me". In light of this, I've blocked Daffyduck1234 indefinitely, and I'm also going to block the sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. An odd case, I wonder if we'll see the editor again? BMK (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What I wonder is whether we've seen the editor before. My sockpuppet radar went off immediately when I first read this report (as I said then), but I tried to exercise WP:AGF and then the person started using a sock, so maybe my instinct wasn't so much paranoia. -- Atama頭 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Their areas of interest seem rather tightly defined, so it might be worthwhile poking around. There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth about the Margie Hines date of death issue, but I can't recall if there was socking involved. BMK (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was indeed socking, and I was in the middle of reporting it (memory starts failing as you get older, you know). It's not impossible that our friend was this editor, who stopped editing a month ago, and who earlier admitted to being this puppet master. My description of the writing style of the master fits:

distinctive style of writing: one line paragraphs, infrequent use of caps, use of ampersand and other informalities, and they generally don't sign their posts. Their edits are generally helpful, but their writing is weak, and their attitude on talk pages a bit confrontational with overtones of ownership.

That's not quite enough to say it's a match, but it's pretty intriguing. My AGF tank's a bit empty at the moment, so I'll say that it's possible to interpret a one month gap in editing as an attempt to make their edits too stale for CU to use as comparison -- but, of course, there have been other gaps of that size and longer in the editing history. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now he's editing as User:Ginsterama. Undoubtedly the same person as Daffyduck1234 and Sandboxxxxx. BMK (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Two more unsourced sub-sub-stubs created (Kate Wright and Victoria d'orazi). SPI opened at . Can someone please salt Buddy red bow until this blows over? BMK (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And another Phil philmar. BMK (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And now Marcus powell. BMK (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And indef blocked by NawlinWiki. BMK (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The sub-stub article Marcus powell just deleted by NawlinWiki was previously deleted on 22 August 2007 by Lectonar. Could an admin take a look at that deleted article and report who created it? It might help figure out if Daffyduck1234 is a known puppetmaster. BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Similarly Kate Wright was previously deleted two times. Knowing who created those two would be good. BMK (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcus powell was originally created by Matt0012 (talk · contribs) on 22 August 2007. Kate Wright was originally created by BoopBoopaDoop (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2009 and recreated by Bayoneta (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2010. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I remarked above, Bayoneta is an admitted sock of BoopDoopaDoop (see the SPI report on that editor in the archive), who was allowed to keep editing after apologizing. Matt0012 is a new name to me. BMK (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a big backup at SPI, so I don't expect to hear anything from that quarter for a while, but it does seem highly probable that Daffyduck1234 (aka Sandboxxxxx, aka Ginsterama) is Bayoneta, admitted sockpuppet of Betty Boop-obsessed puppetmaster BoopBoopaDoop. Why Bayoneta apparently stopped responsible editing to return to disruptive activities is a bit of a mystery, but maybe he or she missed the excitement, I dunno. I do think that we're currently at a standstill in the absence of further activities from this editor or results from a CU, so probably this thread should be closed for the moment, and the discussion can be revived if things pick up again. BMK (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser requested - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI was just clerk-endorsed to check for connections. BMK (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal Notice from InternetQ

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

Hello,

InternetQ has posted a legal notice to the InternetQ talk page.

Tim.thelion (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to Mark.int in this diff. Is that right?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Tim.thelion (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a legal statement on the InternetQ talk page with an update on what has truly happened with the company subsidiary's in Poland legal case.

Thanks

Mark.int (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, may I ask whether your intent was to provide information, or to threaten? Tim.thelion (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that we don't accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a legal threat. Not sure why you would. That said, Andy is right of course. That's a primary source. The article needs secondary sources to counter the negative claims. §FreeRangeFrog 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that it is a primary source (though that is relevant too), the real problem is that we have no way to verify the authenticity of such uploaded documents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually, that's the main problem with primary sources :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Government reports are primary sources, yet they do not suffer from such problems. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A primary source is a primary source, and they all suffer from the same problems. Regardless though, in this particular case that PDF doesn't even look legit to me. §FreeRangeFrog 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) While of course, without verification of the uploading parties, we can be sure of its authenticity, I don't see any particular reason to doubt it. It looks like a perfectly ordinary legal notice a law firm or lawyer would draft for a client. No one ever suggested it involved the courts in any way and in many (most?) countries there's no requirement for the courts to endorse a simple legal notice. Of course as with many legal notices, it does carry the explicit threat they may involve the courts if they feel it's not responded to appropriately. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I said "court" when I was thinking "law firm", sorry. What set me off was this: ...is definitive and final may cause the civil and penal liabilities. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still don't think there's a good reason to think it may not be genuine (although as I've said we can't be sure either way in the absence of confirmation from the people involved). Bear in mind it's apparently a Polish law firm and writing this notice doesn't really sound like the sort of task you'd assign to the top partners in the law firm, more likely the intern or whatever, so minor mistakes in grammar or explaination don't seem sufficient reason to think it's fake. It's not like this sounds like something a 419 scammer wrote. In fact looking more closely I'm not sure if this is from a law firm per se, or a sole practioner. (In the later case, that doesn't really mean we should expect better since it's resonable the person may have been primarily hired for their expertise dealing with Polish law not in writing legal notices in English, and we should also still expect them to have made less effort then something more important.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Tim.thelion that it's more complicated then that. For example the uploaded source mentions a court docket. If anyone wanted to bother, they could track down that docket and confirm that the case was completely overturned on appeal. That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself. (With the added problem that the court docket is likely in Polish.)

Also of course, whether we're sure we're simply describing rather than intepreting the primary source and whether it's significant enough to mention if no secondary source did.

Or to give another example, representatives for InternetQ could upload the legal notice to their website. Or they could ask OTRS help to confirm someone here is really who they say they are and representing InternetQ. Either way, this would ensure the legal notice is authentic, i.e. representatives for InternetQ are really making those claims. It won't of course ensure the claims in the legal notice are correct.

We do have a classic problem where there is a significant change to a case against a company or person on appeal, but where by that stage, no one really cares so it's difficult to find reliable secondary sources discussing the result of the appeal even if we have an abundance of sources discussing the initial case and result.

While I'm generally strongly opposed to using primary sources by themselves, if court documents can be found this is one sort of case where IMO it's fair to make an exception provided we are careful that we don't intepret the court case/document.

However it doesn't look like this is a problem here since a source has been found. (And actually I'm not sure we even have an abudance of reliable secondary sources on the initial case, I only see one in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "statement" is a legal threat. When posted to the talk page of an article, that threat appears to me to be aimed at the Misplaced Pages community.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remove immediately the false reference that "In November 2011 the company was successfully sued for a paid SMS scam", along with the misleading references at the bottom. Not seeing it. It's not exactly courteous, but not a legal threat. §FreeRangeFrog 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat is "Spreading untrue information ... may cause the civil and penal liabilities." Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup - the final paragraph of the uploaded document looks like a clear and unambiguous legal threat to me. Incidentally, looking at the uploaded file, it doesn't purport to be a court document - it is (or claims to be) a statement from an 'Adwokat' concerning a court ruling. As such, and given that the document refers to "my client", it would entirely useless as a source for any supposed court ruling even if we could ascertain that it was genuine. We couldn't rely on the legal interpretation of an involved party as trustworthy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh the PDF... didn't read the PDF, sorry. Still not sure how that could be construed as a legal threat to Misplaced Pages, but OK. In any case that doesn't look remotely like something that came out of a court. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit worried about the wording in the PDF as well, but we have to look at the intent here. Mark.int was uploading the document to verify the overturning of the judgment against the company, and stated as much on the talk page. If Mark.int had said that Misplaced Pages needs to comply with what the document is stating, then that would be a legal threat, but that hasn't happened. I'll point out that there is a secondary source verifying this information (actually, it's complaining about how unfair it was that the judgment was overturned). -- Atama頭 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The document in question has today's date on it. It is written in English, though referring to a Polish court case. I see no reason to assume that it was created for any other purpose than to upload to Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um who said it came out of a court? It's a legal notice sent to wikipedia contributors (and could be other places) allegedly by representatives on behalf of InternetQ. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tim.thelion directly asked Mark.int if this was intended to be a legal threat, and Mark.int said that they just wanted someone unbiased to change it. I usually err on the side of caution about these things (heck, the only thread I've ever started on ANI was when I thought I had been given a legal threat, and I was wrong) but this is a somewhat unambiguous one. Unless we get a more direct threat I'm not concerned. I guess we'll find out, because I think that Mark.int wants us to remove sourced information that I doubt anyone is willing to do, so we'll see what happens. -- Atama頭 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note regarding the comment above "That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself." - I'm not quite sure how they're considered with regards to a company, but if the subject is a person court documents are explicitly disallowed as sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it's not an unambiguous legal threat, and Mark.int is not making a legal threat himself, but it's good grounds for cautioning him not to go down that route, and see also Ticket:2014032410011965. More eyes will not hurt at all. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was about to turn this in as a legal threat before noticing that the same had already been done. Pointing out that the thing we're basically accusing you of doing can have a civil cost would seem to fit quite nicely into the description of a legal threat in past cases I've seen here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picking up on AndyTheGrump's point that Misplaced Pages does not accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources, review of the document shows that the main paragraph deals with the substance of a court case, appeal and finding. The last sentence is an implied legal threat about anyone not abiding by accurately reporting the main paragraph's findings above. That's my take for what it's worth. Don't see a real threat to the Wiki community, just standard lawyer huff and puff to close out a letter -- sort of like "this letter is written without prejudice to my client's legal position to do blah blah" in other such standard sign offs. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zebrasil.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Detroit Joseph

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

Tendentious editing and warring at Farshad Fotouhi. Detroit Joseph continues to post content to the article and the article's talk page in violation of WP:BLP. Note previously redacted edit summaries starting in December 2013.

Topic Ban Proposal

I propose Detroit Joseph be banned from further editing of Farshad Fotouhi.

Recent diffs displaying TE and persistent BLP violations, despite being alerted to BLP issues in Dec 2013.:
1
2
3
4
5

I have reviewed the edit history of the article and the talk page, evidence of a vendetta against the subject of the article and continued posting of content in violation of WP:BLP, trolling of editor talk pages.

There are no signs that the editor will voluntarily refrain from further edits. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Detroit Joseph's BLP violations regarding this person are intense and chronic. A representative talk page comment by Detroit Joseph is: "You need to read Crain's Detroit Business, to know that your hero, Farshad Fotouhi, is a very bad, corrupt man. Just because he's Iranian doesn't mean he's a good guy. Look at Mamud Ahmenutjob.” The editor seems determined to portray this person in the worst possible light, and a topic ban is now in order. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having taken a look at the edit history, particular the edit summary for a Feb. 14, 2014 edit, it is clear that this editor has a personal vendetta going against the subject here. This is not the place. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Simply put, if you've got such an obvious grudge against a BLP subject, you shouldn't be editing that page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport Grind your axe outside of Misplaced Pages, please. OhNoitsJamie 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the normal "broadly construed" as it is the topic rather than that particular article which is a problem. This recent diff shows the style—Misplaced Pages should not be used to settle scores. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone dispute that Paul Strauss halted a $2 million donation to the Wayne State College of Engineering because of Fotouhi meddling with Auner's vital breast cancer detection research? Does anyone dispute that James Woodyard resigned because of Fotouhi's lack of integrity? Anyone? Anyone at all? Those are pretty big things. And they're just the things that have been reported in verifiable newspapers. Hey, here's a thought: maybe Misplaced Pages should have a policy that things need to be verifiable with reliable sources. Too bad there's no such policy. Then you can just invent some personal vendetta, attribute it to me, and use it to ignore what has been published in Crain's Detroit Business and Detroit News. Detroit Joseph (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:REHASH. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• SupportThis has been going on for months. Joesph has repeatedly made it clear that he cannot edit in accordance with our neutrality policy and continues to fail to get a clue. -- John Reaves 20:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support What Detroit Joseph needs to learn is that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources are irrelevant when it comes to pointing out the corruption of corrupt university officials. Misplaced Pages's goal in those cases is to merely be a carbon copy of the corrupt official's page on the university website. A picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now follows. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin Conduct and Competence Questions

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

Today there was an article recreated by an obvious sock User:Shiyasnazarptpm of User:Shiyasnazar. I opened the SPI, I also nominated it as A7 and G11 as we have in the past before when the article was created. The sock contested deletion and I left the link to the SPI ]. The administrator now is accusing me of incompetence in tagging in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence. This is the first iteration of ] of the article, the only sources being provided are owned by the owner of the pageant. I tagged it as a CSD ]. Here comes User:Amatulic who states "rm G5 speedy nomination - you need to provide evidence, and you haven't" That's where the problem starts, It's clearly on the talkpage and it's the only csd criteria he is taking issues with. I reverted it because there is evidence ], It's on the talkpage, their userpages and the SPI, now if the articles have previously been deleted I can't link to them for evidence and moreover I don't have to when it's deleted and in this case username alone and editing habits is enough. If he can't see that or too lazy to see that I'm wondering is this a habit in his administration? this can be a broader forum for his conduct, obviously this isn't blockable and we can't strip the mop from him but I'd like to know if this is habitual. The sad thing is he could have easily avoided this by a simple hey you know what I missed the SPI link, I'm not comfortable making a call on it let's wait until it's completed then we can delete. But accusing me of disruption to cover his laziness is not ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For further background, read:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Miss Queen of India
• User talk:Amatulic#CSD Alteration

And no, I'm unwilling to delete based on G5 for an open SPI case, if you want to call that "habitual" so be it. Other than that, and those two conversations links above, I have nothing else to add. I will unlikely be in front of my computer for the rest of the day either, so however this plays out, will have to be without my involvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do much this morning anyways so maybe your absence can help fix the mess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest striking " in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence." It's not constructive to resolving the dispute and is unbecoming. You seem frustrated, which happens, but try to remain pleasant. Good luck! Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I struck it and yes I'm extremely frustrated. It's always frustrating to see people that are in positions of trust in the community act with so little regard to process or not think things through. I do understand this may be on the more minor side of things but I've been here for 5 years, I work hard every time to make sure my tags are well thought out. I know that there will be disagreements but this one screams bad faith or something worse. I'm not sure how else to describe it other then I have before. I also understand making a mistake and saying hey I missed that, unfortunately I have to do that often but there again, this is a person in a position of trust within the community that seems unable to do so, that and the behaviors are pointed out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is frustrating. Trouts all round. Amatulić said he couldn't find the duck test "clear". Duh. The sock was using the same freaking name. It doesn't really take much effort to see the identity between "User:Shiyasnazarptpm" and "User:Shiyasnazar", when they re-create the same article, does it? Trout to Amatulić, because this is really wasting the time and goodwill of editors who do the thankless task of page patrolling and sock tagging. Trout to H.i.a.B for the incivility. As for the article, I'd speedy it right now, if it wasn't for the fact that an independent good-faith editor has in the meantime taken the article over and indicated they consider it potentially notable, so it's better to just let the AfD play out normally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault, I was in a bad mood anyways and this just set me off. I was talking to the other editor in the meantime and we were having a productive disagreement. I can just drop it but really all I wanted in this is an apology. I don't have to have one I just hate it when I get accused like that and I was already a ticking verbal bomb this morning anyways cause of off wiki crap. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Just some general advice for you, something that I find comforting myself. When you run into a situation (like the one that you described above) where a person (administrator or not) has done something that seems blatantly incorrect for whatever reason, don't get frustrated. It's isn't an unreasonable reaction (it's natural to think "Why did they do that?!") but it also isn't a constructive reaction. Instead, take heart in the probability that it should be easy to find a second, contradictory opinion from another person (as you did here on ANI). The more obvious the issue, the easier it should be to find someone to support your perspective. And when you seek that second opinion, try to present your case in as calm and reasonable a manner as you can; if you do so, you're likely to get a positive response much quicker without side-tracking the issue with any vitriol you're presenting. Of course, this is Misplaced Pages and there are no guarantees that even an obvious issue is going to get the right kind of support, but you don't need to get frustrated until you've looked elsewhere for help without success.

Again, your frustration was justified. All I'm saying is that when I end up in a situation like yours (and it happens), I try to look at it positively, because the more blatant the problem the easier it is to find support. That's how I deal with it without getting too steamed up. Just a tip. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right lol, I try and remember that most times. Today was just one of those days for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Post RfC actions of Dr.K, Collect, Moxy and myself

I'm requesting input from the community on whether the (post-RfC) actions taken by Collect, Moxy, Dr.K. and myself were appropriate in light of the results of a recent RfC on the Justin Bieber article. Long story short, I feel that they are deleting information which during the RfC was actually supported for inclusion by a majority of the participants (if you count). I find Dr.K's behaviour in particular to be offensive because he did not participate in any of the RfC's two surveys, and only after the RfC is closed, he starts removing information which only 25% of editors supported deleting. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Content inclusion in a BLP which is clearly deemed contentious requires a positive consensus - at this point only one editor seems to be asserting that such incidents must be placed in the BLP. As for his insistence that editors must "vote" on his point-by-point wall of text, that is just absurd. As for me calling his posts "wall of text" I invite anyone here to look at the length and number of his contributions and argumentation on the BLP talk page. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP are clear on this, and this forumshopping excursion does not belong at AN/I at all. shows the edit at issue now -- noting that it gives much space to a "White House petition" which was deemed of no value except by basically a single editor, is the talk page discussion thereon. Gaijin, the closer of the RfC, specified that the material requires editorial consensus. One and only one editor says no consensus is needed for the trivia - and I suggest he may be in for a rude awakening regarding his one-man-consensus here, and the tendentious editing thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point-by-point survey came about due to a call for clarification so that there could be progress. I think it's just lazy that you didn't bother to offer a point-by-point reply. The petition was discussed in the RfC as well, and there were other supporters, although it was certainly contested. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is confusion among some editors about policy. One would think that BLP policy would all be located at WP:BLP, but there seems to be an important BLP policy that is spelled out at WP:Consensus and not at WP:BLP: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Perhaps this quote might answer the current dispute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, since that bit has been part of WP:CON for a long time (june '12) it seems there is a decent consensus for that interpretation of consensus. I'd support adding it into BLP and seeing what happens. Regarding my close - clearly there was support for inclusion of the general topic of Bieber's scandals and how they are affecting his image, but the individual points were not widely !voted on (with the exception of 2 that had consensus to be removed). The lack of response on those other points brings up WP:SILENCE but as all of them involved contentious BLP (and some of themBLP that wasn't even about Bieber) it raises the bar for inclusion on those specific points. As far as ANI, this was a borderline close, with a lot of it coming out as no-consensus. Continued efforts to build that consensus are not a matter for ANI, but if there is edit warring or disruption, that is something for ANI. In light of the WP:CON snippet, it does appear that positive consensus for inclusion would be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although not perfectly aligned with the WP:CON snip above, BLP does already have something along these lines (although it appears to be targeted at the entire article, not individual bits of content). Perhaps the two bits should be conformed more

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that BLP quote. It seems pretty clear that material about "run-ins with the law" is contentious material that falls under these provisions of policy, so it should all be removed unless there is consensus to include or retain (assuming it's all presented in NPOV fashion, reliably sourced, etc).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint did very well here...the majority of his text has been implemented because of the RfC. But there is however points that did not have consensus at all that were not re-implemented. Leaving out a poll and info on his friends antics was the out come of the RfC from what I can see. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

These are my edits of the 19th of March, which offended Starship.paint so much that he had to drag me to ANI, albeit with a nine-day delay. I try to avoid ANI as much as I can if for nothing else than to avoid the drama. So I wasn't planning to reply to these allegations, except that I felt that I had to address his comments (personal attacks) about my "offensive behaviour". He does not seem to understand that Bieber's biography is no place for showcasing the results of what police found in his bus while he was absent. Neither is Bieber responsible for what was found on the body of his friend Lil Za. That is why I removed this stuff. I also removed ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. on the basis that "upsetting authorities" is a vague and comical allegation, unworthy of inclusion in his biography. I also removed the bit that Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood. as trivial and unworthy of inclusion in a serious biography. Residents are frequently upset with their neighbours, especially if they happen to also be leading the lifestyle of rock stars. And finally I removed: R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What does that have to do with Bieber? I did my best to improve Bieber's bio by removing this tripe from his biography. After a nine-day delay and without replying to my comment on the 20th of March on the talkpage of Bieber's article Starship.paint brings me to ANI. He could have tried to reply to my points there instead of transplanting the dispute to this forum. Finally, as I remarked on the talkpage of Bieber's article, I find that Starship.paint frequently badgers opponents with walls of text. That was one of the primary reasons that I did not take part in the RfC. I simply could not discuss this tripe while anticipating to be showered by walls of text defending the trivia. Perhaps Starship.paint can be advised to try to improve the encyclopedia in more substantive ways than trying to relentlessly defend the addition of inconsequential crap in Bieber's biography and subdue the opposition with showers of text. Δρ.Κ.  23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So now you're blaming me for not replying to your arguments, when your last post on the Bieber talk page called for me not to reply to your arguments because you know my stand well already. Do you want my arguments or not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't exactly tell you not to reply. I told you to wait until someone other than yourself came to defend your points, since this is a wiki. I had hoped that you would get the message that since after nine days noone came to defend your arguments, that your points were not popular. Now I see that the message you got was to bring me and two other editors to ANI. I am not going to comment on the wisdom of that action. Δρ.Κ.  06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple to me; you, Collect and Moxy are "regulars" of the article. It would seem that the majority in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC aren't such "regulars" editing the article. They apparently don't monitor the talk page, therefore they don't comment. If they disagree with me they can post so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once I disregard #7, all of this information you removed was supported to be included by a majority of participants in the RfC. General survey had 12/17 supporting the inclusion of the legal issues, point-by-point survey had 6/8. How is it that it's possible for you to ignore participating in the RfC, then coming around to remove points after the RfC ended with a majority of participants supporting these points to be included. I just don't think it's right. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC results on those points were debatable. Even the closer of the RFC commented they should be removed. These points were demonstrably irrelevant to the BLP as I have stated before. We cannot allow BLP-violating, irrelevant, nit-picky, low quality etc. etc. points into the article just because the RfC results were murky. That would be an utter failure of the collective editorial discretion. Δρ.Κ.  06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Debatable". Nice oversimplification. Imagine that you did bother to participate in the RfC's two surveys, and voted against every single point. Then 6/18 would be against the legal issues (33%) and 3/9 in the point-by-point survey (again 33%). It's a very non-murky "minority". Gaijin42 singled out points 7 and 13, not 2-5 (which you targeted). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: WP:CONSENSUSis not a vote and your use of numbers and "votes" for your "list of points" has no value whatsoever, and the fact is that WP:BLP is a very strong policy which means that policy-based arguments trump "I hate Justin Bieber" arguments every single time. At this point, moreover, you appear to have a bad case of WP:IDHT which may well be addressed at this point, as it quite appears that tendentious point-pushing may attract undesired attention to yourself. Verb. sap, applies. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Given that it is undisputed that each content point I have tried to insert has multiple reliable sources, I bring up a sub-policy of WP:BLP, which is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.
• This is exactly what happened the last time. You bring up policy, I bring up policy, we revert each other, RfC was started to gauge the wider community's stand on this issue so that we could have progress. RfC concludes with more people tilting towards include. I know RfCs don't rely on voting, but this is exactly what the community feels, and I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that.
• I've already argued before how each individual point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, so I can do it again if you want, but you'll probably call them "walls of text" again and ignore them, just like how you've done so in the past. Tell me you want me to prove how each point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, go on. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that. Please leave this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or put people in a zombie-like hypnotic trance to do your bidding. But I think I know why you have invested so much time and effort to defend adding this trivia which is unrelated to Bieber directly. The common thread between Bieber's bus inspection by the police while he was absent, Lil Za's cocaine bust and Khalil's arrest is that you want to associate Bieber with these events and imply that he is guilty by association. You want to editorialise: "Bieber's bus is bad, Khalil is bad, Lil Za is bad, everything around Bieber is bad, ergo Bieber is bad". The same goes with the rest of the events with the neighbours and "making authorities upset": "Bieber makes authorities upset, neighbours upset, ergo Bieber is bad" This is a WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTHESIS project on a grand scale designed to attack Bieber by painting a synthetic angle using a patchwork of tabloid news fodder some of which is not attributable to Bieber directly. You want to create a feeling of malfeasance about Bieber using a collage of trivia. I suggest you abandon that BLP-violating approach or action may have to be taken so that you can stop targeting Bieber this way. Δρ.Κ.  17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This may all be caused because Starship.paint is use to writing about wrestling were the whole topic is fake. as seen here the topic its self is fuelled by speculation put out by the community to draw interest. Writing about characters over real people may be where there is a problem. Wrestling survives on guess work and made up associations, but the rest of the world does not work that way. I think Starship.paint does a great job for the kids that are interested in wrestling articles, but needs to understand that associations and things like public polls is not what we consider valid for real bios. The RfC was pretty clear to me that the majority did want to mention the topic of legal problems overall, but they also had reservations on some points as did the closer of the RfC. Need to read what people are saying not just look at there vote. -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. Thank you Moxy. Staship.paint seems like a capable editor if only he could be guided in the right direction. Δρ.Κ.  00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• So instead of countering WP:WELLKNOWN, Dr.K. takes a sidestep to claim that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. To counter this, let me say that all the reliable sources of these "previous incidents" that Dr.K. removed were only written when reporting Bieber's first arrest, which means that the reliable sources have made the connection between the previous and current arrests. Several reliable sources listed the multiple incidents Bieber has been involved in since 2011 or 2012, and they even listed more than 12 incidents in 2013 itself. How is it WP:SYNTHESIS if reliable sources can make this connection?
• And oh Moxy, you had to bring up my editorial background in wrestling? The notion that wrestling is based on guesswork is ridiculous. Also, you're again portraying my content as silly kids stuff again, hardly fair to me.
• I'd really like a third party opinion on Dr.K's removals and the current arguments on this topic (that said, I hope Dr.K. will reply to my arguments as well) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: When eight or more other editors do not share your position, you are unlikely to convince others by iterating your same arguments over and over and over and over in interminable walls of text. I suggest you take a step back, have a cup of tea and drop the stick -- right now it is apt to do you far more harm than good to keep this up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• What Collect said. And some more advice: Here we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a patchwork quilt of guilt by association in which we are going to try to suffocate Bieber's reputation. There is such thing as editorial discretion. Please try to exercise it more often. Also ANI may be a lot of things but it is not an editorial advisory board. Except, of course, if you consider bans or blocks some type of editorial advice. Δρ.Κ.  12:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. It's really not the first time my opponents have ignored my arguments when I've brought up policy to trump them. "Walls of text", they say. Funny how Collect pulls out the number 8 now and previously dismissed all the numbers that were in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC (12). I simply stand by what many very reliable sources have said about Bieber, which counters your assertions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are reaching the point which some might call tendentiousness incarnate. I suggest you note that absolutely no one here is accepting your POV, that the RfC closer did not back you up, and that your use of AN/I for Forumshopping has failed as a hint, but it appears you need a stronger hint. Will someone please oblige starship.paint? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been zero third-party comments since Dr.K. replied. Again, I request a third-party opinion on the subsequent arguments on display; I believe my opponents' have been whittled down to asking for subjective 'editorial discretion'. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Misplaced Pages article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Misplaced Pages and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Misplaced Pages admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Misplaced Pages, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Misplaced Pages). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Misplaced Pages as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Whether or not Truthsayer62's use of the word "libel" is actually a legal threat, it is sufficiently disruptive to be grounds for a topic ban in and of itself. If the user is not indeffed for legal threats, he should at least be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal mumbo jumbo and deleting academic quotes (again)

Truthsayer62, a WP:SPA by his own admission on his user page, is now making definitive statements of libel, when we are simply using secondary academic sources from Bultrini and Dr. Thurman. This article is not a WP:BLP. And the Bultrini book with Thurman's foreward clearly documents Chinese involvement. Despite Chris Fynn's recent explanation on the talk page, and previous deleted warninings on his user page, Truthsayer62 once again deleted direct quotes from Dr. Thurman from 2 different pages, Dorje Shugden Controversy and Western Shugden Society. Administrator Thatcher confirmed that Truthsayer62 and 3 other accounts were "editing on the same topics from the same location" and was blocked for sockpuppeting. The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by the New Kadampa cult (WP:COI) is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Misplaced Pages). Many other editors have struggled for years with Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of fallacious arguments about libel, neutrality etc., despite Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources, we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Misplaced Pages as just another NKT blog. Heicth (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I warned Truthsayer62 to try to avoid words like "libel" or "slander" because accusations like that could be perceived as legal threats and we usually block people who make or strongly imply a legal threat until they clarify that no litigation is planned, or threat is intended. I don't think the word "libel" was meant to be a threat, so I haven't taken any action, but I'd rather head off that kind of escalation now before it happens. -- Atama頭 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean anything by the use of that word and I didn't realise that it was serious. The truth is that Heicth doesn't like me contributing a view from the other side of the Dorje Shugden controversy and so he is doing everything he can to get me banned when it is he who is being obstructive. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Three week edit war over WP:BLP violations

I'm not a regular editor of this article about Ted Nugent, however it is on my watchlist and I happened to notice an edit-war over what appears to be a pretty obvious WP:BLP violation. A non-reliable source was being used as a source for contentious material about a living person. I have no idea whether the accusation is true, nor do I care. But we cannot state in Misplaced Pages's voice an opinion held by a non-reliable source (AKA an advocacy organization without a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). Therefore, I have partially reverted the edit. I invite other experienced editors knowledgeable about WP:RS and WP:BLP to examine the issue. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. Good work. --John (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, better work would have been looking at the extensive RFC discussion on the talk page and at least acknowledging it. No idea why you posted about it on here, especially since that content was only one piece of the "edit war" that died down 10 days ago. --NeilN 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, NeilN. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RS for the quote itself: Los Angeles Times, CNN, New Yorker. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal against consensus

Hi. Today User:Lightbreather has repeatedly removed some material against consensus. The latter removal was after three editors (including me) objected to removal. So, it seems like a pretty simple situation. User:Lightbreather claims that the removal was kosher because a different sentence at a different article was removed, which kind of seems irrelevant to me (the other article is currently the subject of an ArbCom case). I tried to make reasoned arguments, but they mattered not. A block for LB would be very helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All of my reasons are given in the very long (sorry, but not all on my account) discussion of yesterday (27 March 2014) "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, and in the 20-27 March 2014 "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. However, I will be happy to answer any other questions that arise. In a nutshell, IMO: Anythingyouwant misrepresents the conditions under which the material in question was added to the article, and the "consensus." I suggested that he start an RfC on the subject, but instead, he started this. Again, I will be happy to stop what I'm working on to answer any questions that arise. Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question that arises. Is it not correct that you reverted against the express objections of three editors at the article in question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A block for the 'contributors' who see Misplaced Pages as an outlet for pro-gun propaganda entirely unsupported by legitimate academic sources would be even more helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not objecting to my request, Andy. Of course, when describing a political issue at Misplaced Pages, reliable sources that describe the opposing positions are necessary, and can be used without Misplaced Pages endorsing any of it, which I think is the case here. Unless our goal is to use Misplaced Pages for stamping out descriptions of one side of the issue, while promoting the other. Anyway, this is simply a case of ignoring policy in order to revert against consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of ignoring policy, I note that the assertion regarding Brazil in the disputed text is entirely unsourced - I suspect because the actual source for this appears to suggest that the "pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil" was unlikely to be understood in a Brazilian context, having been created by outsiders with little understanding of local issues - and of course misrepresenting sources would be against policy. And for the record, your 'thanks' are premature - I do object to your attempt to get someone blocked for supporting policies - which of course overrule any supposed 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the removed phrase simply says that the fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership "is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States." If you believe that that violates any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever, then I am dismayed by the incredible degree to which you are wrong. Anyway, you've only objected to one of four supporting sources, which says: "NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home". In what universe does that not support the statement in the text? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Misplaced Pages to slant the POV impact of its political articles, but in that case I suggest we get an additional policy written up, such as WP:Ignore all liberal bias. I emphatically deny any suggestion of promoting any POV at Misplaced Pages, but plead guilty to tilting against bias where I see it at this website. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the 'removed phrase' includes a reference which quotes Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Culture (I'd missed that it actually named the source - sorry). What it fails to do is indicate that the quote is cherry-picked, and intentionally misleading, as noted by FiachraByrne on Talk:Gun control some time back - the source states that "...the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler" - making the claim that the Hitler poster indicated a 'fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership' in Brazil less than credible. Such cherry-picking of misleading quotes is however par for the course for the pro-gun lobby. Still, I'm sure you can live with that since the POV being pushed isn't 'liberal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Grump, I never I thought I'd hear "sorry" from you. The removed sentence obviously did not claim anything about Brazil or anything about Hitler. You're making me sorry that I ever logged on to this website, and I'm sure ArbCom will soon complete what you have started. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually look at diffs before posting them on ANI in future. The first diff you linked clearly and unambiguously includes the quotation "he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism" as part of a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That quote is in a footnote. The removed sentence says nothing about Brazil or about Hitler, and if anyone would like to shorten the quote in the footnote then it's fine by me. I'm not going to be the one to shorten it, because it's a perfectly sensible and honest quote, and it doesn't imply anything that isn't true according to that reliable source. I honestly don't see any way that that footnoted source does not support the removed sentence of text, which is so obviously correct that I would be flabbergasted at this discussion were it not Misplaced Pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources - we remove them entirely, along with the supposed 'reference' they are supporting, as contrary to both Misplaced Pages policy and elementary standards of encyclopaedic integrity - as Lightbreather had done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to say "bullshit" here, or is that only allowed for the regulars? Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you this evening Grump. Have a wonnnnnnderful evening, y'hear?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Our article text did not mention Brazil. The source does. Its one of four (?) sources used, all which clearly document that argument being used outside the US. If you disagree, and think the argument is restricted exclusively to the US, find a source saying so. Otherwise take your WP:OR elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that sources are being intentionally misrepresented is not 'original research' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of the three editors (Anythingyouwant and Gaijin42) who objected to "the sentence" being removed are parties to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Andy is also a party to the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you popped up User:Bbb23, perhaps you could clear something up for me. Does the ArbCom case cover Gun Politics in the United States or not? Had any of us thought that it did, we would have insisted that Lightbreather be a party. Maybe the case only covers those editors at that article who get in LB's way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An Australian, pro-control source, also used as a reference, dedicated to the topic of control says "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany". And then proceeds to give several examples of the argument being made in Australia. The statement is 100% indisputable, reliably sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A simple question: was the quote you mention selected (a) to accurately reflect the opinions of the author regarding the significance of the 'security against tyranny' argument in the Australian firearms regulation debate, or was it (b) selected to bolster claims that the NRAs argumentum ad Hitlerum has international support? Before answering, I suggest you read the source concerned... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you Grump. Do you think that the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has been entirely confined to the United States? Hmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That has precisely nothing to do with the issue I have raised - that sources were being intentionally misrepresented in the material Lightbreather removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

I propose that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to stop misrepresenting sources and stop forum shopping, with a clear message that any more of this will result in escalating blocks.

Everyone else seems to be keeping it mainly cool in a heated debate, and at least trying to stick to discussing actual content and actual sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - He has just inserted the "international" material back into the Gun politics in the U.S. article again. Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, with the support of 4 out of five editors at talk page, and with additional language intended to address the objection from AndyTheGrump, though I doubt it will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously, I emphatically deny misrepresenting anything. Misplaced Pages will either decide to handle controversial political subjects neutrally, or it will inevitably be a propaganda machine, and my choice would be for the former instead of the latter. Also, please note AndyTheGrump's statement below: "I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation...." I oppose any and all misrepresentations in this Misplaced Pages article, or any other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you oppose. But since you are (a) the subject of the proposal and (b) not an administrator, your opposition is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am often irrelevant. Mine is not the only irrelevant response to your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

To be fair, I should point out that I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation. As for 'propaganda machines' though, the evidence is entirely clear that the whole absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum regarding firearms law is been driven by a partisan lobby allied with the NRA. It is also clear that their arguments are entirely unsupported by academic historiography, and are cobbled together - in a a "cherry-picked", "decontextualised" and "tendentious" manner, as one academic critic noted - not in the interests of promoting understanding that particular period in German history, but in order to influence a debate in another place and time entirely. That is propaganda. 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that was blatantly removed against consensus said absolutely nothing about Hitler, and that sentence was manifestly supported by its four footnotes, as much as any sentence at Misplaced Pages could possibly be. Andy, why is it not possible to stick to the issue at hand?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence removed was referenced with footnotes which used the words 'Hitler' twice and 'Nazi' three times. Hiding pro-NRA propaganda in footnotes doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. And 'consensus' cannot overrule policy which states that references must not misrepresent sources. That is the issue at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you have objected to one of four footnotes. But much more than one of four footnotes was removed against consensus. As to that one footnote, you have not disputed that it is a reliable source. Whether it is being misrepresented depends upon what the footnoted sentence says, and in the present case the footnoted sentence merely states what should be extremely obvious to any neutral observer: that the tyranny argument is not entirely confined to the United States. This is not rocket science here, and at some point we have to (gasp!!!!!!!) look at the facts. More generally, are you saying that policy forbids Misplaced Pages from saying that the NRA (and others) have used a Hitler argument? Can you not see that describing "propaganda" is not the same as propagandizing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This will be my last comment, so feel free to have the last word, block me, ban me, or anything you want. I felt obligated to bring attention to the recent defiance of the consensus policy, even though I had no illusions that ANI would lift a finger. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, per Godwin's law, it is more or less inevitable that Hitler will eventually come up in debates about firearms regulation. That does not however indicate that NRA propaganda on the issue has any serious credibility elsewhere - and cherry-picking sources to try to prove otherwise, in the absence of sources which actually state as such, is synthesis, and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. The simple facts are that it is only in the U.S. that 'Nazi' analogies with firearms regulation have had any serious traction - elsewhere, as the Australian and 'Brazil' sources make clear, such arguments are either seen as irrelevant, treated with derision, or (as in Australia "the Jewish community finds repugnant and offensive, and totally rejects the comparison") called out as the grossly offensive abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for propaganda purposes that they clearly are. The sources are being cited to support a claim that the facile 'Nazi' analogy has traction elsewhere, without noting that the sources cited make it entirely clear that the analogy has been treated with utter contempt. Misrepresentation of sources is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)

A bizarre post by Anythingyouwant on my talk page

Evidently, Anythingyouwant seems to think that it would be preferable for disputes on Misplaced Pages to be resolved by resort to firearms: "I assure you that if duelling were still legal, I would be seriously considering it" Since such methods of resolution are not only against policy, but illegal (and given the fact that we are separated by the Atlantic ocean, impossible), I have to assume that the purpose of this post was to intimidate me, rather than for any other purpose - and accordingly, I call for Anythingyouwant to be indefinitely blocked for behaviour entirely incompatible with both Misplaced Pages policy and elementary standards of human behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to Grump: "there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one." Funny how he left that part out. Funny how he also left out his previous statement that I am a "patronising little troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have often found Anythingyouwant's editing and commentary problematic. But I can't get worked up about that one. As you say, Andy, there's an ocean between you. How could you possibly be intimidated? Bishonen | talk 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Actually, that is an assumption on my part - I have no means of ascertaining where Anythingyouwant actually is. In any case, it is clearly written in a manner intended to intimidate, since it can serve no other purpose. And yes, it is intimidating to have fellow contributors suggest that they would like to kill me. If this isn't 'problematic', I have to ask what is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, since it appears that Anythingyouwant is intent on continuing his intimidatory behaviour, I shall withdraw from this discussion, and contact the WMF directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't want to kill them either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as crocodile angst? At worst, this is an accusation of cowardice, which isn't very nice.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile angst. Yes, apparently there is. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• comment: The dueling statement goes over the line. What if the statement had been "I assure you that if assault were legal, I would be seriously considering it"? I think it would have been seen as intimidating. At the very least, Anythingyouwant should be warned express to their views in less threatening and more civil ways. I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to duel never resulted in any physical harm to anyone, unless both adults consented to it. Since this point seems not to be well-understood, I now realize that making the comment was a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: I think much of this disagreement arises out of the ARBCOM delays in releasing a proposed decision for Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control which was scheduled to be posted on February 12th. Granted that there are almost always delays, but waiting an additional seven weeks for a decision that might involve some topic bans means that editing in this topic area is still contentious. I'd like to recommend admins wait until a proposed decision is posted by ARBCOM to act but it's still unclear when that will occur. Liz 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And in the meantime making violent threats against editors is okay? — goethean 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is headed toward a pistols-at-dawn situation. (Besides, knowing Anythingyouwant, I think if anyone agreed to a duel with him, he'd immediately launch into an interminable, legalistic argument about the technicalities of the code duello until all of the seconds got fed up and went home). It's more like: if we've gotten to the point that one editor is yearning for the opportunity to duel another, then we're waaaay past battleground behavior—the editing environment on these articles is broken and adult supervision is required. MastCell  19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal" (above) is pretty bad. It doesn't devolve to "I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be wrong in so many ways" but more toward "I would kill you if it was legal (and thus I could get away with it)" which carries the strong implication of "I wish you were dead". That's a pretty hurtful thing to say to someone as well as inflammatory. Is the dispute really that important? Let's not talk like this, people. Perhaps a nice hot steaming cup of Please Be Quiet is in order for the offending editor?

On the bright side, invitation to duel at least indicates that the person considers one a social equal and fellow gentleperson. If he considered you a mere yeoman or townsman he would presumably just threaten to thrash you with his cane or trample you with his horse. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The illegality is not the only reason why I do not want to kill Andy. But I have already apologized for mentioning duels at his talk page (see above at 18:47, 29 March 2014), so maybe we can move on now? I will even forgive Andy for calling me a "patronising little troll", if he would forgive me for mentioning that a duel might be satisfying in the present case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest you duel with pillows, or something equally undangerous. Perhaps a virtual duel in an online game such as Wii Sports Resort might be suitable. Jehochman 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banjos. Writegeist (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Handbags at dawn? Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia! We don't invite others to "duel" in the manner done here, nor to continue to insult and taunt them: ("there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one"...according to Anythingyouwant.)--MONGO 22:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As an honest person, I get tired of being relentlessly accused by AndyTheGrump of being a propagandist, a patronising little troll, etc, etc. I overreacted by mentioning duels at his talk page. I did not suggest that he would be a coward to not accept a duel, only that if I did propose one (which I didn't), then he could simply decline, with no injury to anyone. People who generously dish out heaping portions of condemnation should understand how offensive it is to the recipients, and such assumptions of bad faith have no place at an encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...how do you think we proceed now? Is an interaction ban needed?--MONGO 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Both should behave as if there's an interaction ban in effect, because if something like this comes up again, that would probably be the result. Jehochman 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I will. That is why I left the gun control article last year, and have not been back to edit that article since (I explained this to Andy today at his talk page). I guess ArbCom will address what's been happening today at Gun politics in the United States (that's why I started this section at ANI).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• No wonder people laugh and joke about the petty politics and buffoonery that runs rampant behind WP's façade. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems clear that Misplaced Pages admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom

...though given their apparent inability to make any progress whatsoever on the 'gun control' case (now almost seven weeks overdue), I would have little expectation of it being dealt with appropriately there, either. Frankly though I am almost beyond caring - it is becoming more and more obvious that this whole farcical enterprise is little more than an exercise in vanity publishing, combined with the worst aspects of 'social networking', and with a generous dollop of corrupt and contemptible POV-pushing of the most overt kind (paid and unpaid - though personally I find the latter more obnoxious, as paid editors at least have the excuse that they have to earn a living somehow), all carried out without the slightest concern for the readers, the only legitimate justification for the existence (and charitable status) of the encyclopaedia. In such circumstances, the most honest course of action has to be to leave the whole festering heap of semi-literate, factually inaccurate and biased beyond all hope of redemption 'articles' to the POV-pushing drones, clueless Google-miners and fancruft-shovelling subteens, in the hope that readers will come to recognise sooner exactly what it is, and look for 'knowledge' elsewhere, where it might actually be compiled by people with honest intentions, and with the slightest clue regarding what they are writing about.

And for the record, Anythingyouwant's assumption that (were duelling hypothetically legal), I would turn down his hypothetical offer is at least open to question, given that (assuming said hypothetical duel permitted the challenged party to chose weapons, as is the custom in civilised countries), I would have to seriously (though hypothetically) consider the relative merits of having the opportunity to (hypothetically) run him through with a sword against the risks involved, and might well consider it worth the chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter has already been brought to the attention of ArbCom at the Workshop page. For the record, User:Lightbreather has again deleted material against the consensus of four editors at the talk page of Gun politics in the United States. The deleted text is indicated by strikethrough: "Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere." There was no attempt by LB to rephrase, to compromise, to save the footnoted reliable sources, or anything of the kind. This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Then stop waging 'jihad' (interesting turn of phrase), stop impugning motives, and stop disregarding policies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect you'd notice that the stricken sentence is exactly what you asked for today, in between condemnations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for nothing other than that policy be complied with, and sources not be misrepresented. As for 'footnoted reliable sources', it has already been amply demonstrated that the quotes in at least two were cherry-picked to 'prove' a particular POV, with complete disregard for the broader context which indicated the contrary. Under such circumstances, policy requires their removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The "POV" in the stricken sentence is that the tyranny argument gets little traction outside of the U.S. Last I checked, that was your "POV" as well, and also the "POV" of the cited sources. Anyway, as suggested above by other editors, I will do my best to not interact with you anymore, Grump, and I hope you will reciprocate. Nothing good can come of it, and we both end up looking like complete buffoons. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

None of this "duel" nonsense would be welcome in a "civilised country," save in the context of your therapist's office. 76.72.23.170 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded." I know Anything thinks that I'm disregarding policy (I disagree), but waging a jihad? Dang! Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential section heading issues

I changed the heading of the previous subsection from "Since it seems clear that Misplaced Pages admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom" to "Further discussion" citing that it was a more neutral section heading, and didn't contain an assertion embedded within it. Also it brought in line with policies. AndyTheGrump (who worded the initial heading) reverted my change. I feel that my change was correct and consistent with and directed by policies and guidelines, and that the version that it was reverted to is a misuse of headings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And your doing this is entirely unrelated to the fact that you have been a leading proponent of gun-lobby propagandising on Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with this, is it? In any case, your removal made a complete nonsense of my following sentence. And no, saying that Anythingyouwant was involved in 'intimidatory behaviour' isn't an assertion - it is a statement of fact, as acknowledged by his (half-hearted) apology for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledged no such thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So the claim regarding 'sincere apologies' you made at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop wasn't 'sincere' after all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologized for using the word "duel" at your talk page, I do not believe you were intimidated in the least, nor was that my intention, and yet we see the fuss it has caused. My only intention was to convey to you how upsetting your accusations and insults are, but I did it in a suboptimal manner. Anyway, as campaigns of demonization are often successful at Misplaced Pages, I expect you will be getting the results you have been striving for. In the mean time, can you please leave me alone? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be 'left alone', I suggest you refrain from posting intimations of violence on talk pages in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider character assassination just as serious as physical violence, and you have done a lot more than intimating as far as that goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are no longer denying that your post intimated physical violence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I collapsed the section above; Andy reverted. I've got no dog in this hunt, and I request someone else close this and be done with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at page Whoniverse

The IP 41.132.48.255 is being extremely disruptive in a content dispute over at this page. Their actions include:

• Taking a near constant hostile tone.
• Refusal to negotiate to reach consensus despite several offers to collaborate (1, 2, and 3).
• Personal attacks (, , ).
• A series of grudge reverts against User:Mezigue (1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).
• Block evasion (User talk:41.132.48.255#March 2014 and User talk:93.186.16.245#March 2014).
• Outright lies .
• Refusal to understand Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, and most importantly WP:NPOV (Talk:Whoniverse).
• Repeatedly removing the version User:Mezigue and I, as well as User:GraemeLeggett to an extent, have been attempting to improve, in favor of their own poorly written, poorly sourced, POV version (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
• Copying of large sections from other articles into the talk page .
• As well as the fact that they have engaged in such interactions before
• And adding unsourced/not notable "Criticism" sections to discredit the definition of the term that they disagree with. , .
• Along with modifying other articles to fit their thesis (1, 2, 3, and 4).
• And most recently WP:OVERTAGGING to "prove" their point

Notes: if anyone decides to do something about this, then a extended semi-protection of the page would be most effective since this user's IP changes regularly. G S Palmer (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little puzzled by this posting, given that the IP is already under a 48 hour block for edit warring (his second in a week; G S Palmer was also blocked for edit warring on the article earlier this week - they were at AN3 over the same article in mid-March, but were both warned). There is already administrator intervention, and there's no need to semi-protect the article if the single individual disruptively using an IP can be handled individually. I do not know if the IP will work within consensus processes after his block expires or if he will continue behaving disruptively, but it had been my intent to continue to monitor and hand out escalating blocks as appropriate to anyone who persisted in edit warring.
  
  However, I don't have strong feelings about this, and it's already been quite a time suck, so if another admin wants to weigh in or take it on, feel free. :)
  
  Because the IP is blocked, he cannot speak in his own defense here. Needless to say, he disagrees substantially with User:G S Palmer's account above. I considered unblocking him to allow him to participate and might still, but since this section is relatively quiet thought perhaps just reproducing his response to G S Palmer's notice might suffice. I'm collapsing it because it's long. --Moonriddengirl 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you will keep an eye on the page to make certain that the situation doesn't escalate, that would be fine. The reason that I brought this here was because I worried that once the IP's latest block expired the whole thing would start over again. G S Palmer (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I intend to, User:G S Palmer. If the whole thing starts over, editors who edit war will be given escalating blocks. It doesn't help that you do not come to this with clean hands yourself. Please read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and help avoid muddying the issue. I would suggest that when he returns you ignore your past history or dispute and talk to him about the issues that he raises as if he were somebody else entirely. --Moonriddengirl 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. The article Whoniverse was a rambling, unsourced OR mess. .

I posted this , and received this response .

I edited, making notes. I tried to include others , however .

So I started editing, leaving notes , and still inviting others to discuss it. After some time, I had corrected the article. Was it perfect? Not at all. But it was a first step.

Then, after much editing and discussion, User:G S Palmer appeared.:. This after a long discussion which he chose to ignore..

I tried to clear the air .

But User:G S Palmer was having none of that. I tried bringing up the topic more than once , , , , , , but User:G S Palmer would have none of it.

He has repeatedly removed a WP:RS......such as at , , .

He removed a valid properly sourced section , written by Tat Wood of , , , not to mention .

And yet he has no problem adding (removing another tag, and note his explanation. That's in the first paragraph).

He removes tags for sources which never mention the article's subject at all

He deceptively moved a RS which was merely usage of the term, and never described a thing .

He never bothered reading any Misplaced Pages Policy.

But that's no surprise as .

(The only reason I pasted Misplaced Pages Policy on the discussion page was to try and show him where he was going wrong.)

By the way, I brought this up before he posted this here..

The problem is that the article is still a mess of OR, SYNTHESIS and Unreliable Sources, And of course the fact that he use Lofficier's WP:RS in the first paragraph, yet anyone who actually Lofficier's words sees that Lofficier says almost the exact opposite to what User:G S Palmer states, then falsely claims Lofficier as a WP:RS for. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but these points aren't very well backed up. This edit ("I tried to clear the air") wasn't even one of yours. I also don't see what point you are trying to prove with the quote from my talk page; it doesn't seem to say anything about whether I would read policy or not. G S Palmer (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Threat from User:Salix alba in RfC

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

I have filed a RfC about Debian, as several people advised, even in an arbitration case request.. I am already coping with users disrupting the RfC, but the administrator Salix alba, being involved in the discussion, has actually threatened to block me.

With all due respect, I do not think Salix alba deserves to be an administrator. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-admin, I have to suggest that, having looked at Talk:Debian and the background to this, Salix Alba's 'threat' is entirely justified - in fact I am struggling to understand why this IP has been allowed to cause so much disruption for so long. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and clearly only interested in pursuing some personal crusade over an obscure and entirely uninteresting incident of no relevance whatsoever to any encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As another uninvolved non-admin, I would suggest that AndyTheGrump is correct in his/her evaluation. This IP has had a protracted involvement on Talk:Ukraine relating to the RfC on the depiction of Crimea on the map without ever having been involved in editing the article, or any other reason to involve themselves (other than appearing on the current RfC list?). The IP has left this comment on Guy Macon's talk page ; this continued pursuit of me as a bizarre attempt to manipulate me after dubious advice to a user prompting the user to close a controversial RfC which actually required a neutral administrator to close it. The latest 'advice' being given is to the same user to close an RfC, currently under discussion elsewhere, as if it were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue, whereas admin advice had clearly been to ask a neutral editor to close the RfC via the appropriate noticeboard.

What I'm not certain about is how many convolutions of WP:NOTHERE apply. Salix alba is not a one off target. This IP clearly some other agenda... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• With a past block and a long history of people patiently explaining the problem, it's fair to say this user has no excuse for not understanding. I have blocked the IP for a week to give everyone time to settle the idiocies created to date. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we also have an admin snow close of Talk:Debian#RfC: WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY - Expulsion event so that it doesn't waste anyone's time any further? Ideally, the close would include a brief comment specifying what behavior is expected from 84.127.80.114 in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An edit war starting

• At the end of Protei-5 Russian diver propulsion vehicle are some links to Youtube videos showing and describing the Protei-5. Those links have stood since year 2008. User:110.169.128.14, who seems to be a novice (see Special:Contributions/110.169.128.14), deleted those links yesterday; I restored them. He is continuing an edit war about this and ignored a request to discuss the matter. I feel that I should have another opinion about this. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Although edit-warring is typically reported at WP:AN/3RR, without reviewing, I'd usually agree with the IP when it comes to linking to external copyrighted sites such as youtube DP 09:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; in this case the IP is wholly in the right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IP gunspotting

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

An IP user who has been warned numerous times in the past about adding links to trivial weapon appearances and was eventually blocked for persistently adding unsourced gun-related information in spite of numerous warnings is actively back at it again. In the last few days, there have been numerous such examples: 2601:D:9400:5FF:88CA:4B8C:7A46:656 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review my block of Macktheknifeau

Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is unhappy that the consensus went against him here. The outcome has been that editors have decided to use "soccer" to describe the sport in an Australian context. Rather than challenge the consensus in a collegial way or try to establish a new consensus or a compromise of some kind (any of which I would be open to), he made a series of edits which changed "soccer" to "football", the opposite of what was agreed. This is a sample. I have blocked him for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. Please review this block. --John (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen these edits on my watchlist and read the other discussions around naming conventions in australian sport. I agree that the series of edits Mack made recently are quite pointy, but I note he is not actually changing from "Soccer" to "Football", but from "Soccer" to "Association Football". As "Association Football" is the correct formal title for the game. My understanding from the previous discussions was that consensus was reached to use "Soccer" over "football" to avoid confusion with Aussie Rules. As the edits here do not do that, though they are pointy, they do seem to put the articles in a position where there can be no confusion and there is no issue over whether a "correct" term is being used. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It varies. This edit changes soccer to football. This is the opposite of what the discussion agreed. --John (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies. It's also called "soccer" in Canada, even though we have the "Toronto Football Club" that plays Association Football. DP 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The entire discussion, in which Macktheknife participated, was to stave off discussion for a while to let cooler tempers prevail and work on other things than the name. The block for pointiness is thus warranted. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Macktheknifeau's attitude was clear even before a consensus was reached. Their vote said: "Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet." When Mack then defied the consensus, a block was justified. The post-block discussion between John and Mack is progressing somewhat. Mack claims that the anti-consensus changes they made were "inadvertent", although at the same time calling the consensus "illegal" (whatever that means). The last comment in the discussion is from John attempting to get Mack to have some insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with this editor over football/soccer-related articles (believe it came to ANI then as well), they are disruptive and do not abide by consensus or policies/guidelines. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not commenting on this specific case, but in general, I think it's a good idea not to do a block and then ask for a review. Instead, please discuss before blocking. If the threat is so imminent that there's no time to discuss, then obviously the block is necessary and there's no need to discuss. Jehochman 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's up to the admin which way to do it. There's a spectrum between "imminent" and the length of time a discussion may take such that if one waits for a conclusion, the block may not be timely. It's not easy to forecast how long a discussion will take.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't it our goal to avoid blocks? If a problem becomes stale without a block, but isn't repeated, that's a good thing. If the admin isn't certain a block is needed then and there, don't do it. Discuss the problem with the user or at AN/I and see if a resolution is possible. If the user goes and does the problematic thing again while the discussion is ongoing, then block. Jehochman 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am absolutely certain a block was needed there and then. This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy. That block was reviewed at this board here. The general issues surrounding my enforcement of this area were discussed there and also here, here and here. I committed at the start of this process to having any admin actions taken in this area reviewed here at AN/I as a form of transparency and accountability. So far the community has been kind enough to endorse my actions in this area. If you have any serious qualms after reading these links I would like to hear them; if not I will continue to work to try to solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. This editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior before; hopefully the block will result in an improved editing process for them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not really a fan of this idea of block review and as such agree with Jehochman, but in cases of disruptive editing (rather than simple vandalism etc.) a block is often a signal, a word to the wise, and a review, if editors and admins agree of course, can strengthen that message: this was not just a block by a single grumpy admin, and the behavior for which a user was blocked is indeed deemed disruptive by a group of editors and admins. Stronger signal, fewer claims of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• I participated in the soccer vs. football discussion, and I don't think it would be desirable for me to express an opinion on the block. However, I support the unusual mentoring that John has undertaken to resolve the long-term bickering, and I support the idea of bringing blocks to ANI for review as an exception to what is normally done. The benefit of discussions like this is that the participants will learn whether John's actions have the backing of the community, and whether future claims of INVOLVED are likely to be successful in derailing the process. There should not be many blocks, and the time spent reviewing them would be much less than the time required to deal with the soccer/football war if John's mentoring fails. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very wrong to block an editor and then a tart a discussion about them in a venue where they can't respond. While it may not be John's intention, he has engaged in public humiliation as a form of punishment. Blocks aren't to "send a signal," they are to prevent harm. If you want to send a signal you talk with the editor and if that doesn't work, go to this board and ask for additional feedback. Blocking and then denouncing the editor while they are blocked is not fair. Jehochman 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read John's post at 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC), especially the bit that said "This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy"? This is hardly a first offence by an otherwise perfect citizen. I have been routinely abused by this editor for being a member of and posting as part of some sort of evil group of supporters of another sport. He has been doing it for years. It is only John's incredibly thorough approach that is finally highlighting to administrators where the real problems lie in those discussions, and how bad they really are. Those of us who have been posting in good faith for years, and occasionally becoming frustrated at the absolute nonsense being repeatedly presented by a small number of editors, are finally seeing some justice. Anyone who bothers to have a proper look at what has been going on there, as John now has, will see the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Compromised account Athaenara

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

This is an emergency. My e-mail has been hacked by someone and now I cannot log into my Misplaced Pages admin account User:Athaenara either. I suspect that they are methodically changing the passwords on every site connected to my e-mail account. They haven't edited yet on en.wiki but I request an admin to temporarily (hopefully) block my account while I resolve this. – AthaenaraEmergencyAccount (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigating. LFaraone 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that an additional account was created for this purpose. An anon post with a request to revdel would've made more sense. I'm interested to know the conclusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Harassment from admin/editors

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

Hello, I'm writing to get something done about this harassment from Admins on this factual and encyclopedic site. The admins in question are Kansas Bear and Favonian on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina de Salm, and Charles de Valois. As well as an editor named DeCausa on Mahdi ...They have been vandalizing my work and even going as far to harass me. Why don't the Admins, especially the Admins, read the talk page, before making an edit?Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notify the other editors and provide links/diffs to the abusive behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnicholas70 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Wnicholas has edit warred, and logging out to continue edit warring, simply to include his/her opinions into Mahdi, Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina of Salm, and Charles de Valois.

"When asked to provide reliable sources, Wnicholas links to some website that makes no mention concerning the 3 individuals. Wnicholas, who uses edit summaries to tell other editors that "wiki-trees", ancestry.com and geni.com are reliable sources, also has thrown a few personal attacks around:

"Hi, obviously you do care who I am related to if your supporting this vandalism from a bunch of commies and following the rules is what got me here"

"Hello, Yes I am being harassed by Favonian, WHY DON'T THE ADMINS READ THE TALK PAGE? Here's what he said;"Postulated relationships do not constitute reliable sources"...Leonard de Lorraine is on wikitrees...how is that postulated? He's also vandalized Charles de Valois, something about "dodgy edits"... I believe he's tripping as I got these edits from ancestry.com and the French Misplaced Pages...we need to take Danish Admins out of this equation"

"P.S. the Mahdi page is being vandalized as well...he had this to say:DeCausa"

When told on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine's talk page, the "source" makes not mention of the individuals in question, Wnicholas answer is some snide remark, "Your asking me for lyrics to Nirvana's "On a plain"...? I could say Silent Lucidity, Queensryche", repeating snide remark again on Christina of Salm's talk page.

It is quite clear this editor is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience of him is on Mahdi. Edit warring yes, but the posts on the article talk page, the edit summaries and the bizarre citations are just plain weird. I don't know what he's here for but from what I've seen it's some sort of WP:COMPETENCE issue. If it was just on the Mahdi article I wouldn't have been that bothered but if he's doing weird stuff in a number of places it probably does need admin attention. DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should have added some diffs. Anyone interested need only look at the bottom of the article talk page to get the flavour, plus this example edit (I.e. the link that he's citing - apparently page 29 - and the text it supposedly supports) DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your edits claiming that Muqtada al-Sadr claims he is the Islamic Mahdi (most recently here, but also repeatly in the Mahdi article) is unsourced and is a violation of WP:BLP. The "Mahdi" in the title of his organisation, Mahdi army, is not a reference to him, as explained in the Mahdi army article. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnicholas70, I don't know what point you are trying to make. Muqtada al-Sadr is a Twelver Shia which means he believes that Muhammad al-Mahdi is the Mahdi. That's who the Mahdi army is named for. Neither he nor his supporters would consider Muqtada al-Sadr to be the Mahdi. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience with this editor, Wnicholas70 (Nicholas), began on Talk:Charles, Count of Valois where he self identified that Charles, Count of Valois was an ancestor. I suggested that Wnicholas70 read WP:COI and use {{request edit}} to request edits. Shortly thereafter Nicholas made edits to my user page as both Wnicholas70 and 208.87.232.180 (this IP appears to have been used by Nicholas over at least a period of days – nothing wrong with that, I am merely identifying them as probably his edits). I assumed that putting the text on my user page instead of user talk was merely due to inexperience or mistake and moved the comments to my talk page. In those comments, Wnicholas70 identified that his current desire on Misplaced Pages is "updating my 2 royal lineages". The text in these edits identifies multiple people as his ancestors. Thus, the pages about those people are ones on which Nicholas has a WP:COI.

The only page of those he is actively editing which I am currently watching is Charles, Count of Valois. As a result, my primary experience of him is on that page (other than my User and User talk pages). Nicholas has not used the Misplaced Pages:Edit requests process on Charles, Count of Valois even though it has been suggested that he read and follow that procedure. His edits on the article and article talk pages are:

Charles, Count of Valois:

• He placed his edits (15:48, 21 March 2014) on the Charles, Count of Valois page. In the process he removed a considerable amount of content. Those edits were reverted (17:12, 21 March 2014) by Wikipelli, which was stated as reverted because of the removal of content.
• He then made similar edits (20:34, 21 March 2014) without the significant removal of content which were reverted by ClueBot NG.
• Then he made similar edits(21:12, 25 March 2014) (including some content removal), which were reverted (21:06, 27 March 2014) by Favonian.
• He then re-reverted (16:46, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (16:48, 29 March 2014) by Kansas Bear
• He then re-reverted (16:53, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (19:39, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself).
• The last three edits/re-reverts have included the removal of some content. It is not clear to me if this is intentional, or by mistake. The edit he made which was reverted by ClueBot NG did not include the removal of that content.

Talk:Charles, Count of Valois:

• Effectively blanked the talk page (15:22, 27 March 2014), reverted (16:54, 27 March 2014) by Favonian
• Effectively blanked the talk page (20:28, 29 March 2014), reverted (21:54, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself)

Based on Nicholas' own statements he has a WP:COI on various articles which he is editing due to his ancestry the articles being about the named individuals he has stated are his ancestors. I would suggest that he follow the procedures at the various links already provided to him for edit requests. — Makyen (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC); clarify intended use of "ancestry" 01:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point, and not addressing any of the other issues pro or con: since when do we declare someone to have a COI based on their ancestry? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

When by "ancestry" the editor means "named individual the editor is (or claims to be) descended from or related to". I could be in COI if I were to edit an article about an ancestor of mine, especially a fairly recent and controversial one. --NellieBly (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let this drift into a tangential discussion about COI and ancestry. This content of this user's posts are eratic and display WP:COMPETENCE issues.DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the descendants of Charles de Valois run into the millions. Many - perhaps even most - of those reading this will be his descendants. So I don't think it can be a valid conflict of interest - nor any sort of justification for Nicholas' egregious behaviour. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that there may be some desire to continue a discussion regarding WP:COI in general. Shall we take it to WT:COI?

In the hope that it will result in no need to continue a generic discussion about WP:COI, I will state a bit more here. I don't believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the mere fact that someone is physically the descendant of some named individual is immediate cause for it being a WP:COI for that editor to edit an article about said named ancestor. Taking Wnicholas70's actions and statements as a whole, he has a WP:COI with respect to these articles due to his relationship to the named individuals taking precedence, for him, over his role as a Wikipedian.

If anyone feels we should continue a general conversation about WP:COI, please start a thread on a more appropriate page (e.g. WT:COI, or the talk page(s) of specific article(s) ). If you feel I should participate, please {{ping}} me. — Makyen (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, can an admin take a look at Wnicholas70's contribs and esp. talk page posts asap. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I deeply regret having previously blocked this editor for a mere 31 hours rather than indefinitely. All that keeps me from pulling the plug now is the possibility that someone will declare me involved. Seriously, this person is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Take for instance this recent talk page comment, in which they again make peculiar claims to relationships going back a two-digit number of generations. A slightly older comment at DRN indicates either a disturbed person or troll. Favonian (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week after again blanking Talk:Charles, Count of Valois and told that the next one likely to be indefinite. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two – and I would have gone for indef right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, probably I should have. I'm too nice. But one more edit out of line and indef. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If he comes back, that's going to be inevitable. There's one of Favonian's descriptions of Wnicholas90 at the end of his post above which, unfortunately, appears to be the case. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I now think I made a mistake, given his responses to my block. If he carries on this way we should just extend the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And after some further incoherent rambling on his talk page (really, if anyone can make sense of it, they're a smarter man than I, Gunga Din) an indef has (well deservedly, I say) fallen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a block for User:Thesunshinesate

This user has been busy constituting nuisance and fighting everyone on wikipedia. he/She seems to be here for his/her own personal agenda and he/she has been making articles to be biased. As I see it, he/she is always removing anything 'Anti-Ghana' and it doesn't matter to him/her whether they are sourced or not. Here are the following reasons I think this user should be blocked.

• Personal attacks - he/She is always against people who reverts her propaganda posts and she results to personal attacks, name calling. etc on the user talkpages. You can see an example of that at the bottom of my talk page in this revision. That was just because I placed a warning on her talk page concerning his/her disruptive edits.

• Gross Incivility - he/She reverts edits with flimsy excuses and never discusses with other users, an example can be found with his/her various reverts on Ghana article history. he/She reverts anything antiGhana in the article even if they are appropriately sourced. he/she seems to be the only one against the contents. Various warnings has been placed on his/her talkpage, but he/she is never ready to discuss the concerned article/content. Instead he/she removes such warnings instantly and instigates a fight on the users' talkpages. You can see the various warnings placed on her talkpage (including mine) by clicking on the history of the talkpage.

• Edit Warring: he/she has been reverting a particular content like since forever on the Ghana article. Other users keep readding the content but he/she keeps removing it. This is the Content. Please note that the other IP addresses reverting the same content belongs to him/her as the edit summaries are similar to the one he/she gives. He/she considers it "An anti government rant". I don't think this content should be removed as well as it is well sourced and I believed both the 'good' and 'bad' should be included on Misplaced Pages to achieve NPOV. Another example is the one she just started on the article Cinema of Nigeria. Note that this user has also broken the WP:3RR.

Thanks--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This user and his friend (Versace1608|talk) are fishing around to block me (He wrote to someone to have me blocked) They have tagged teamed on me for no reason. Jamie Tubers has made himself the authority on many articles and no one can dare to make an edit with him reverting. He has filled the Cinema of Nigeria with bias claims and invalid sourced from gossip and entertainment mags as his source of reference. He also game on the Ghana page

and reverted a claim has been disputed since 2013 me and several others have worked very hard on the article to make it neutral If you look at my edits I have not removed anything anti- Ghana like he claim ..claiming international accounts of corruption with no proof and adding references from entertainment sites in an anti government rant is not something that is suppose to be in an wiki article.

Those sources are not even approved based on wikis standards, this editor and his friend can not bully people for making edits just because they don't like it. He is calling my edits propaganda yet he has done nothing but glorify the pages he edit. I am not from west Africa and many of the other editors that I have worked on the Ghana page with are not either. I have nothing to gain. Yet the articles he has worked on for Nigeria is filled nothing but claims from unverifiable sources their edits need to be looked into. he edit that I reverted in the Cinema of Nigeria has sources from an online African gossip entertainment magazine. He and his friend Versace1608|talk are coming after me because I told them to get true sources Thesunshinesate (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

People should not gang up to stop others from contributing..wikipedia is an open forum I am not going to be bullied and threaten by these two editors and I don't think their propaganda based edits should be allowedThesunshinesate (talk)

Seconded. Also while I only very quickly skimmed through the discussion, this is not a good place to debate whether something is a RS. Try WP:RSN if discussion on the article talk page fails or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution as appropriate like an WP:RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple edit warring complaints belong at WP:AN/EW not here and don't need anywhere near the level of discussion you're involved in here. BTW while there may be enough edit warring for a block I didn't see any clear cut 3rr violation. They are at the limit now but their previous revert before now to ths Ghana article was well outside the 24 hour window. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about his/her edits or want to prove anything concerning their reliability, he/She can discuss that with the other contributors on the articles (If he/she will). I only noticed he/she is busy edit warring and always attacking anybody who warns him/her about it. That's the reason I reported the user. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was Thesunshinesate that raised useless and irrelevant issues claiming someone is out to get him/her or something. Good, you also noticed the edit warring was evidently very much. And what about the personal attacks he/she is always giving anyone who notifies or even tries to advise her on the edits?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR was evidently broken too. this edit, this and this were all made within 24 hours--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that's three reverts. Where is the fourth revert that constitutes a 3RR violation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And the personal attacks and abuses?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor can raise whatever they want, there's no need to respond to them if they are irrelevant to the discussion particularly when your comments are further irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, saying 'the other editor started it' is never a winning argument. And they are indeed irrelevant to this discussion, the reliability of the sources is no excuse for edit warring and should be established somewhere besides ANI (note that my message was directed at all primary participants of this discussion). As for the personal attacks, I had a brief look and their comments do seem problematic but it's not something I can be bothered looking in to. Consider this an example of the problems when you engage in long, irrelevant, argumentation on ANI before anyone gets a look in. Even if there are some legitimate complaints, by the time anyone knows what they are many are not going to bother to look in to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie Tubers, Nil Einne gives you very good advice about ANI posting, but you did right to take the problem here. I agree with you that Thesunshinesate is confrontational and very sure they're right at all times (for instance here, where they clearly don't know what the policy says). As is illustrated by their talkpage and even by their input in this thread, which shows much assumption of bad faith. (I must say, when people talk about their opponents being a "tag team", it rings a warning bell for me.) Admins and others are watching now, and Thesunshinesate has been warned on their page. I can only see two outcomes of that: either they change their approach to editing and their attitude to other contributors, or they get blocked pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC). <Addition: Plus I've just noticed that their comments on User talk:Jamie Tubers have been even worse, with some classic template abuse (a 4th-level "harassment" template, which is ridiculous). Bishonen | talk 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC).>

• I just went through the contributions of the user and considering the claims of 'many' contributions, I had to conclude the user must have been editing anonymously as well. I went through the Ghana page and I saw that the previous disruptive reversions were made by anonymous IP addresses, then this user comes up to continue the reversions when the page got protected. This is really suspicious and a clear sign of bad faith. I'm very sure the following IP Addresses were used by this user (there may be more): 216.165.95.64, 69.120.255.161, 216.165.95.66, 24.190.23.37 and 69.120.215.121. I came to this conclusion because they have things in common with this User: the IPs made that same revert on the pages this user is involved in, the other contributions on those IPs (mostly disruptive) are similar/same with the topics this user edits and there are lists of warnings on the talk pages of those IPs (especially the first one) regarding the edits. I have reasons to believe this user infact only uses this account for protected pages, but regularly edits anonymously. I may be wrong though, as I'm aware IP addresses may be shared.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You make good points, Jamie, though it's an exaggeration to say that the name account is only used when articles are semiprotected; it has edited several non-protected articles in the last couple of days. However, 216.165.95.64, the one with all the talkpage complaints going back to 2008 without a break, and several blocks, certainly quacks like a duck, especially if we consider the edit summaries. 216.165.95.64 writes "remove npov political attack attacks against current rpresident does not belong in encyclopedic article; and when the article has been semiprotected, Thesunshinesate echoes "revert NPOV anti govment rant with has no place in article". (Note especially the use of "NPOV" when presumably "POV" is meant, a signature for this user.) I was just going to block that IP for three months, when I noticed that Alison, a checkuser blocked the same IP in 2008 as part of a sockfarm. Alison, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now, in relation to Thesunshinesate and the other IPs. Their brother 216.165.95.66 doesn't have any similar bad history, and the other IPs you mention, Jamie, have IMO likely enough also been used by the same individual — they revert similar information, and geolocate to the same area — but they're dynamic, and haven't been used much, nor very recently (they're probably being used by someone else by now). Anyway, I hope we hear from Alison. If she's not editing, I will block the duck in a day or so. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Mass removals of content similar to what is being discussed here have been happening since last December. There have also been multiple registered users that have removed content that portrays the government of Ghana in a negative light, including, in chronological order, Citizen gh (talk · contribs), Exdogbaste (talk · contribs), and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs). However, Medicineman84 registered way back in 2007, and has made many constructive contributions. It is possible that there is both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry taking place. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you asked me, I think the four accounts belong to the same person.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Bangladesh

Hello. As can be seen, the List of Presidents of Bangladesh article is for some time now a target for persistent IP vandalism, additions of incorrect data, etc (including additions by a newly-registered user). I'm asking admins for help to finally put an end to this kind of behavior on this article. I also asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --Sundostund (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is protected since 05:30, 30 March 2014. Hopefully, that will put an end IP vandalism, etc... --Sundostund (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:44thPresidentOfUSA

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

User:44thPresidentOfUSA has created an article (Ford Shelby CV525) about a vehicle that does not exist and the only references is a fake forum discussion (the user pretends he's Motor Trend) set up a couple of days ago and a Facebook page with a bad Photoshop job. This user is likely one of the many socks of User:Altimgamr. I did a WP:PROD but the user deleted it. Not sure how to get this article removed and the user blocked. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted this article and warned the editor. Thanks for bringing it here. --John (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

They were publishing their password on their user page. I revdel'ed it, verified it was the real password (ask a CU if you want verification, I consent to having myself checked anytime), then indef blocked with no talk page or email access. Not only are they not here to build an encyclopedia, but obviously here to do damage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Nissan Maxima (talk · contribs), already blocked. There's at least one other that smells, SPI being opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You can add User:Abcdefghijkaa , I nailed that one patrolling the user creation log. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Nissan Maxima and salted the fake article. --John (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And CindamuseBot. I will keep patrolling the creation log for a bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre Warrior Andrewbf

Andrewbf (t·c)
The user Andrewbf is long-time genre warrior who has been warned repeatedly about WP:GWAR and has ignored all warnings and input from other editors. Never once has explained genre changes or tried to gain consensus. Does not provide sources to support changes. All attempts to communicate with this user have been completely disregarded, and this can't keep going on. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you need to provide the differences or links to show the user has been GWARing and that attempts to ask for an explanation have turned to deaf ears. Give the admins something to work on. —Indian:BIO · 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are samples: . User has received notices on talk page from myself , @STATicVapor: , @Jim1138: , @Lightsout: , @Etheldavis: , @Flat Out: , and IP 183.171.179.131 regarding these unexplained/unsourced changes. Every single attempt so far has gotten no response and user has not stopped even a 31-hour block from admin @Elockid:. As a matter of fact, Andrew quickly resumed genre warring after the block expired. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre impersonation of me

In this diff, an IP editor (who has at least a couple of IP addresses), insists that he is me, and for some reason takes a bizarre fascination with the tags on an article about my brother. I believe I will stop reverting him and let others decide what to do about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

German IP blocked for impersonation and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner appears to be trying to cause a policy change through precedent

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

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See generally Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27, where The Banner has separately nominated some twenty template redirects to various WikiProject templates with virtually identical rationales. This is the culmination of several recent RfDs (e.g., Template:wprk, which closed as keep) where The Banner has campaigned for the deletion of WikiProject template redirects on grounds that do not reflect community consensus. While I have no objection to the initial RfDs being brought, this latest move seems akin to making a rule change through an adjudicative process—that is, causing us to adopt a de facto rule by gradually removing all cases where such rule would be clearly incorrect. I do not mean to assign a malicious intent to this move—I believe The Banner is acting in good faith—but this is simply inappropriate. If The Banner wants to clarify policy in the manner he claims is correct, he should be doing it via a broadly announced RfC. I request an administrator to speedily close the RfDs so such an RfC may be started by The Banner. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have notified The Banner, but please note that The Banner is presently blocked for another incident. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This obviously runs the assumption that there should be, at the least, an RFC. Mendaliv has not explained why this 'de facto rule' that is apparently in the making would be 'simply inappropriate'. Is he suggesting that the people who comment at these RfD's don't have the capacity to think for themselves? A 'de facto rule' is not a policy and nobody's expected to abide by it. — Lfdder (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If, indeed, "policy is what we do", this course of action is not, on its face. inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's not interested in suggesting a policy change, why should he be forced to? Is there a policy for it, perhaps? Also, I don't think speedy-keeping the nominated redirects for this reason is very sensible. Most commenters in support of deletion do not even necessarily share the nominator's sentiment; they seem to agree with User:Frietjes that the redirects are 'confusing'. — Lfdder (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv has now commented on many of these w/

Speedy keep Frivolous, POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects.

or some similar variation. User:The Banner's rationale for that particular one (Template:C&w) is "Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible". I don't see where this alleged consensus Mendaliv alludes to is to be found there. The Banner seems to be expressing little more than his own opinion. Given Mendaliv's fascination with urging people to to follow some bureaucratic process or another (, ), I suggest that he's advised to exercise some moderation. — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS

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

Earlier today, Binksternet and I engaged in an edit war on the Syngenta article. We ended up reporting each other on the Edit War board. But this post isn't about the purported Edit War itself; instead, I believe that we have uncovered a possible conflict between the WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS guidelines. Based on the guidelines I honestly believe we both had at least some justification for our edits.

Essentially, the argument is over the use of a publicly available primary source - Syngenta's response to allegations made by scientist Tyrone Hayes that Syngenta threatened and attempted to intimidate him. Hayes' allegations were aired in The New Yorker and Democracy Now. Neither news organization contacted Syngenta to ask for its response, and since the allegations aired, a number of outlets - primarily those I would characterize as fringe or environmental activist, but also some mainstream sources - have repeated those allegations or published follow-ups heavily favoring Hayes. Syngenta, by contrast, has been given little chance to respond: so far I have only found two articles - one on Forbes.com and one on another site I cannot recall at the moment - that discussed Syngenta's public response.

The WP:BALANCE guideline states that "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". The WP:BALASPS guideline states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". The first guideline would seem to support Binksternet in removing most references or citations regarding Syngenta's response, since Syngenta's response has had very little if any valid media airtime. But WP:BALASPS would seem to support the necessity of its inclusion, as Syngenta's response in this matter would seem a critical point to make on the page where Syngenta is the primary subject. Regardless of whether I'm considered guilty of edit warring, I would be interested in the admins' take on this subject and what modifications, if any, should be made to the guidelines. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that admins, qua admins, don't ever have any opinions on any content disputes at all. Which is odd and sometimes inconvenient, but that's just how it is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that's fair! But, it still may fit within their remit if this example necessitates a change in the guidelines. In the meantime I could use any experts' weigh-in, as the two I've spoken with so far on the matter are divided. Might be better to do so on my Talk page? Jtrevor99 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All editors may suggest guideline changes on the talkpages of said guidelines DP 08:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And feel free to raise the issue at WP:VPP if you need more feedback. Perhaps just as significant, you're not even talking about multiple guidelines here. Just different sections of the same guideline, or actually policy. So yes, if you believe the policy contradicts itself, feel free to address this in the talk page of said policy i.e. Misplaced Pages talk:NPOV. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like WP:VPP and the policy Talk pages are the best courses of action. Admittedly this is an unusual situation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Started discussion on the Neutral POV Talk page regarding this subject. We'll see where it goes. Thanks for your help; feel free to mark this as "closed". Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of facts

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

In response to the above, see Arkell v. Pressdram. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Private Eye lost eventually admitting "Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage of the proceedings.". Landirenzo (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you cite (a forum, so probably not RS) seems to say that they won. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Au Contraire. Snopes is as reliable an authority on exposing internet hoaxes as Misplaced Pages is as an encyclopedia :-). "nasw.org" is not a legal reporting site. Nonetheless, Mr.Pressdram verifiably paid up, Mr.Arkell took the money and went away, leaving Private Eye to gripe and spin doctor the sour grapes version cited.Landirenzo (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Block requested

An I.P. editor 99.68.24.85 (talk · contribs) has made ten random vandalism edits in the last half hour. Trackinfo (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Hahc21 (talk · contribs). Vandalism reports are normally filed at AIV. Doc talk 07:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Further threats and personal attacks from 216.189.170.139 after coming off 72 hour block

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

216.189.170.139 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The background is in the now closed section above. Immediately after coming off his 72 hour block and removal of his talk page access by Ohnoitsjamie, this user was back on his talk page today with further serious personal attacks and threats against a named editor and general implied legal threats, threats of off-wiki retaliation, and threats of socking: , . Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Other relevant accounts are:

• Middleamericajames (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 72.28.133.36 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note this edit by Middleamericajames at the AfC Help desk, where he identifies as Matthew Berdyck, whom 216.189.170.139 also claims to be, although both deny that they are the same person. Middleamericajames (perhaps realizing he was logged in?) then immediately reverted himself. 72.28.133.36 claims to a friend of 216.189.170.139. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that was extremely amusing lol, I'm not sure this person should be left on their own without supervision. I find it funny that he thinks I'm on blogger sites trashing him and his film lol. For the record and I'm sure most other reasonable editors or people who know me will know for sure I do not need or want to target a non notable film or film maker and I have nothing to do with it. Frankly I don't care about the movie, the person. I just hate the behaviors of people trying to promote their agenda here. In the meantime, good luck when you're unblocked feel free to leave amusing and creative attacks at User talk:Hell in a Bucket, unoriginal and or boring attacks will be reverted. i'd remind them that if they are right and they are famous as they claim it's not my behavior that will be noticed but theirs. So they can act like mature responsible adults or they can continue to act in an elementary mindset and take their ball and go home. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, I know it's really annoying to be on the receiving end of his accusations and threats, but the best tactic on his talk page, and probably here as well, is to avoid feeding his desire for attention and his desire to be seen as a victim. I brought this here, hoping that an administrator could re-block him and remove his talk page access again for at least two weeks. He needs to be taken out of his (self-created) limelight and then simply ignored. Engagement with his preposterous assertions just encourages him to make more of them and draw yet more attention to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not actually frustrated or annoyed, I wasn't lying when I said I find this mildly amusing because it is so far offbase it is rather comical. I think however you have a great point and best would be to WP:DENY at this point. What do you suggest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not much, except to refrain from engaging with him on his talk page or anywhere else on WP. As I said, the IP needs to be re-blocked and have talk page access removed by an administrator and then kept on watch. Postings from obvious socks should simply be reverted. I didn't take this to SPI because they won't link IPs to an account, i.e. Middleamericajames. But I think it's pretty obvious here what's going on. Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I can deal with those pickles! I'll step back and watch. Eventually they will go away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Block extended to three weeks with removal of talk page access. OhNoitsJamie 16:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ohnoitsjamie. I'm wondering if the 2 IPs' talk pages should be blanked except for the current block notices. There are both pros and cons for this, but it might help dampen the drama. Besides, I pity the next (non-related) person who uses those IPs. Lord knows what they'll think. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

When the block expires sure. Other than that who cares if it stays I certainly don't and I seem to be their favorite target at the moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Toondisney Fan

I’m sorry, I don't need this, I've also try explaining to the user, I've had to drag to get details out of the user. I have also asked others for opinion on the BBC One for help and it’s NOT forthcoming, so no... I need an admin to explain how things work to the user. I don't believe the reasons he's given are proper reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BBC_One On this page aswell you will see he's been told off doing splits etc by others already and still he does not listen. If you read said talk page you will see the other problems. His talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:TDFan2006&oldid=601794250 makes no since either. I think this is just a wind up. I hope it not and he just a very unexperienced editor who needs to learn fast. I just don’t need to deal with this. --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

With all respect you've not helped him whatsoever, You've simply had a go at him over it & continued to show us your caps lock are functioning which is disruptive in itself, Pointing the user in the right direction is more far appropriate and helpful than coming here about it, We want new editors .... Not less!, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I cant explain these things to help him and its clear no one else want to either. This is why I asked... --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crazyseiko, Davey2010, please also note: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/FanforClarl. This is a pending case. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh ...... Thanks for the notification. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

86.26.247.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making suspicious edits. This editor is adding causes of death to biographies. He is doing so at such a very high rate that it is unlikely that these edits are researched. Some are blatant vandalism (for example). I suspect all of these edits are just vandalism, but since it is not obviously so, I'm reporting here instead of at WP:AIV. Slideshow Bob (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/86.147.28.111 for the background to this.  —SMALLJIM  15:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked a few of them and they were verifiable. I didn't look into the sockpuppet issue. I restored one edit with a citation, then decided not to do more, since I'm not sure the info belongs in infoboxes. In the case of Israel Keyes, the info (died by suicide) was already present and cited in the article text. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Added: you're right that the Carl Berner one is dubious at best, though Isaac Asimov died of AIDS at a rather advanced age, apparently contracted from a blood transfusion during surgery. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Massive edit - propaganda use

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

I wanted to make some minor edits by adding new sources on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Russo-Georgian_war&offset=&limit=500&action=history and then I noticed some massive edits by a single user user:UA Victory during the last couple of days. It seems to me that it's politically motivated. I don't have enough time for Misplaced Pages but probably somebody can have a look at it. I've undone everything since the 17. march. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was too long. I also discovered some factual inaccuracies and dead links, so I began to work on the article. There were too many details which were moved to corresponding main articles. I also manually did fact-checking by sources and corrected inaccuracies. I tagged dead links. What's wrong with it? If my edits were disruptive, then I wouldn't have been awarded the Original Barnstar. --UA Victory (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See that big orange box up top? "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please remember to do that next time. Checking a few of UA Victory's edits showed they were helpful. Please outline your content concerns on the article's talk page. —NeilN 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

UA Victory has helped condense the article, as it was much too long before. In fact, that is why I removed the previous "condense" boilerplate. He has been very meticulous, and I think Misplaced Pages should appreciate his efforts. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Severe canvasing and meat puppetry on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence

Concerning Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence. This is not directed at any one editor, but referring to an unfolding process of canvasing on this deletion discussion page. The situation is becoming increasingly convoluted due to the calls on social media to help the page from those relevant to it and related to the poster. In a nutshell: the topic is mathematically impossible, which is why it has, in the years it was presented on the Web informally, and on this encyclopedia, had no technical peer-reviewed theory or proof in the literature. And the only two sources that are available are from a non-technical source that just happens to be published as a book of essays by Springer, which is easy to confuse at first glance with the journalistic quality areas of that organiztion. This was all pointed out and it was requested that notable sources be provided, but not a single valid citation in this now overlong discourse on the page has been brought up. The reason this isn't going to happen is because these sources don't exist, which any administrator will quickly be able to verify. I am posting this here because of the obvious canvasing and puppetry that is occuring, and that there have been claims made of bad faith. I do not wish the page to devolve from the focus on the topic any further and strongly believe administrative intervention is needed. Thanks in advance. --☯Lightbound☯ 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion has become a bit long winded but is on topic and well within civility standards, surprisingly so. I don't yet see any puppetry, although I would agree that monitoring is a good idea. COI editing isn't against policy, although it is good to note for the discussion. At this stage, there isn't anything else to do. I have faith the closing admin can weigh the discussion and the COI in order to determine a consensus. If a wave of new editors comes, they can be tagged as SPA and likely the closing admin will greatly (or completely) discount their !votes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that COI is much of an issue at AfD, as opposed to article editing, where NPOV needs to be maintained. On the other hand, AfD is really all about policies and opinions, and if a COI commenter doesn't have policies to support their opinion, the closer is unlikely to put much weight on their comments. If there are no reliable sources, the article is unlikely to be retained, no matter who expressed what opinion about it.

    On the other hand, it's generally counter-productive to have one editor respond to every differing opinion with more commentary, as it creates the impression of hounding and of attempting to squealch further commentary. Best, instead, to allow everyone to have their say and leave it to the closer to put the weight where it belongs. BMK (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on that, Don't bludgeon the process some time ago. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting some eyes/support at Robert Hurst (musician)

In the past few weeks, Robert Hurst (musician) has been heavily edited by a party who appears to have some conflict of interest, possibly someone associated with or who works for Hurst. A couple of weeks ago, User: Entre-SLAM dramatically expanded the article, and I did a blanket revert owing to concerns over WP:PROMO and WP:POV. Entre-SLAM restored all of the material, attracting the notice of at least one other editor concerned over content changes. I made a more measured, partial excision of the most egregious adverty material. A few days later this was followed by the addition of a personal essay ostensibly written by Mr. Hurst, again posted by Entre-SLAM. I reverted the personal essay and left a note for the user on his talk page. There was no reply (though I didn't ask for one, but certainly there was no indication that he took anything I said in the message seriously). Entre-SLAM's next edits to the page copied and pasted material from elsewhere on the internet, which I immediately removed as a copyright violation. I left another, more urgent message on SLAM's talk page, which also received no reply. His most recent move was to gut the article of all prose biographical material entirely because it's "incorrect" (even though the material is provided with references).

I'm not asking for him to be banned or anything; he's new and probably doesn't know WP:ADVERT from a hole in the ground. But I can't get through to him alone, and I'd like to have a few more eyes watching the page and reverting the plainly unhelpful changes he may make in the future, and maybe a nudge from someone with more clout than me. Chubbles (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point

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

Ihardlythinkso has been blanking and disrupting articles he has contributed to in order to make a point. , , , , , , ,

A number of editors have discussed this issue with him, but he hasn't stopped. I brought it up on his talk page, here, and got quite a response back. His posts to other users, such as Quale, have recently been way over the NPA line.

• "shut your fucking stupid baselessly condemning mouth."
• "fuck off, Quale"
• "(I don't ever expect apology from that SOB.)"

His response to me was, frankly, even worse.

I think a block for disruption and personal attacks is, unfortunately, warranted in order to prevent this sort of editing from continuing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this show he is trying to WP:OWN the article (or at least his contributions), but my guess it is spite more than anything. He can be blunt, but he isn't dumb and he knows he can't just remove his contributions to the articles. The third pillar makes that abundantly clear, as does the CC-BY-SA license he released the contribs under. He and I have bumped heads a few times, so I'm not inclined to get involved with dishing out sanctions myself, but an explanation from him is certainly due. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Blanking articles" is what vandals do, and I am no vandal. I have three (3) orthochess articles to my name, and any blanking was in error and corrected by me already. I did remove content contributions made by me in those three. On Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening, I removed my copyedits. (I have my own reasons, they have nothing to do with "proving a point", or "creating disruption", so you have no basis to assign those as intention as you have -- that's false, and springs from bad-faith. What readers of this ANI don't know and can't empathize with, is the way I've been treated by editors like yourself, User:MaxBrowne, User:ChessplayerLev (but that was a long time ago, but he never apologized for the bogus ANI and falsifications made then and attempt to get me blocked or banned, as you are doing), all supported indirectly by defacto project lead User:Quale, who has only disparaging accuses and false blames for me, and compliments to those who would attack and attempt to smear. (It's not very pleasant. There is only so much unfair treatment and bullying incivilities a person can take. That limit was pushed over me recently.) I won't be editing orthochess articles any more, as a result, I won't be able to return to project articles I've touched, to touch them again after having improved my editing skills. (Articles I've copyedited when I began here freak me out, how embarassingly poor my writing editing skills were then, and I've drawn the conclusion my skills will probably continue to increase over time, to the point where edits I think I'm pround of today will make me cringe in embarrassment again in future when I see them. I don't want those edits hanging around as permanent monuments to my mediocre skill as editor at that time. I can't return to ProjChess due to chronic maltreatment and prejudice by Quale to disparage me, and compliment those who would attack me. All of that is true for anyone doing the research. But ANIs are burning stakes, aren't they. (No time for digging the truth. Hang'em high!) I believe this ANI is nothing but the OP's assertion of continued conflict-dominance clashes with me at article Antichess and article Checkmate, and if true, a means to harass and misuse process. (Why does he care? No reason other than that. Oneupmanship. Need to assert superiority over another editor he's been in dispute with.)

The issue here is whether an editor has the right or not to remove their own copyedits from an article. If it can be done without disturbing other editors' contributions, then why should it be denied? Edit reverts are the same thing: an editor has changed their mind on leaving her/his edit in the article. So I have changed my mind on Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening. I have my reasons, they have been partially explained -- enough to know accusations of valdalism are wholly untrue and bad-faith by an editor who I've had content clashes with. p.s. In each case of clashes with the OP, I've withdrawn from said Talks to avoid drama with him. He's too aggressive and unstoppable IMO, and objective discussion isn't in the cards with him -- only forcing his way, and "winning". I've avoided him therefore, now he comes to my Talk to unfairly accuse, and open this ANI as further contesting with me for whatever motive. I suspect the motive has nothing to do with the health of the encyclopedia, but rather interpersonal conflict he revels in. I'd like someone to tell him to leave me be. I've loved Misplaced Pages and contributing to orthodox chess articles. But the hostility, false blames, attempts to smear and defame, have made the "collaborative editing environment" a joke of inhospitable abusiveness in my perspective. (Just symptomatic of the wider rampant incivilities and lies told and smears conducted against editors generally -- a civility problem WP has no answer for, but has become the encrusted cultural fact here long before I signed up as editor. I simply don't want to be a part of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Dennis Brown's speculation of "ownership" is not correct. I wanted to remove my copyedits, and the example where User:MaxBrowne was excused for doing this at Chess.com by another editor, that he had the right to do so, was basis for me to believe or offer, that I have a right to undo my edits if I want. Nothing more. I have no desire to break any rule.

Myself, I am not the slightest bit convinced of the sincerity of your argument. But putting that aside and responding to your question, there is no rule against reverting your copyedits. However, once you make an edit here, you release your contributions to CC-BY-SA and have no right to deny the restoration of those very same edits. Others clearly feel the content is beneficial to the article. You have no right to remove it without building a consensus for removal. Resolute 01:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that answer. To clarify, I didn't assert at any time I had right to deny restoration. (I didn't know.) I asked an editor to not restore, that I preferred no restoration (and explained why). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least twice you told editors to not revert a revert, with one of them telling the editor to go read policy and the other telling the editor they were in violation of policy. and So you were asserting that readding the material was against policy. GB fan 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. When Kkj11210 (talk · contribs), a mature and polite editor, tried to discuss the blanking of the chess articles, IHTS immediately launched into a bullying ad hominem based on KJ's youth. I am also fed up with having my name constantly brought up in the process of attacking other editors over incidents that had nothing to do with me. I honestly have tried to have as little as possible to do with this editor lately, but his recent editing has been extremely disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesspool stuff, MaxBrowne. (As long as you feel free coming to the ANI cesspool to accuse of narcissism and disingenuousness, according to your need to falsely accuse and smear, do I in turn get to tell you that your behavior is that of an unethical cheat? Underhanded sleaziness? Do you want to throw more insults and buy the house some popcorn? This is your element, isn't it? Cesspool. Mud. Happy as a pig in mud you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards