Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:13, 17 May 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Personal attacks

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

I have an on-going problem with Scalhotrod personally attacking me.

• 20:01, 27 April 2014, Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 20:11, 27 April 2014, Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 14:12, 5 May 2014, Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 15:04, 5 May 2014, Criticism in an inappropriate context (article talk page)
• 20:58, 9 May 2014 Serious accusation ("history of activity of stacking Users in her favor and bringing in other Users to support her causes" - without evidence)

That last one especially bothers me. He asked the editor he posted that reply to to check my edit history.

As I said just yesterday to the Gun control arbitrators , I'd prefer that Scalhotrod start something specifically about me if he has a beef with me and my edits in general. Otherwise, as I've asked him repeatedly, I'd like him to keep it on content and take personal remarks to MY talk page, or at the very least notify me when he talks about me on other talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not at drama board level at this point. The OP has a huge plurality of edits on the article in question. Of the last 200 edits, including bot edits, the OP accounts for 156 edits. And if we remove the bots, the OP is well over 85% of the total edits on that page. No one else comes within a mile. The best way to avoid any possible aspersions about ownership is not to totally dominate any topic. Verb. sap. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW Collect has behaved, in fewer edits, even worse in my opinion then Scalhotrod. For example, without any discussion he tried to involve an arbitrator by making the same accusations as Scalhotrod, but without first discussing the issue at Lightbreather's talk page nor informing LB of the conversation. Collect removed a few of my edits (claiming I interpolated my opinion into the source}, but when I asked for clarification his response do not discuss my edits, or he doesn't respond.

I have taken a different approach with Scalhotrod, which is discussing very very thoroughly one edit I wanted to make to the article. It has been going on for several days, and in several more we might reach some agreement on the edit. Given how long this as taken I do not blame LB for taking a more direct approach, otherwise not much might get done. Thenub314 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The examples you give show me acting in an entirely proper manner, and I am unsure why you make unfounded accusations here. here. My post here was made to defuse the situation, and not to inflame it. The post to NYB was a "heads up" about an ArbCom case - as I find opening an RfC and then closing it with one's own position to be irregular. The concept of an RfC is that they are generally closed by uninvolved third parties. That this is heinous is beyond me.

The edit I made with the edit summary "desire" is clear argumentation and violative of policy -- and if you cite an opinion - use quotation marks please - this is about the limit for this source was proper, yet was mischaracterized by the editor at hand as Reverted to revision 607787468 by Cwobeel (talk): There are quotation marks in there. And I intend to add more content about this aspect sourced to other books which was odd in my opinion. And having someone repeatedly ask to have someone repeat what has already been posted on the article talk page is not a gainful use of an article talk page at all.

The reply See what discussion, What are you talking about? This is the 2002 source you took out. Yes there is a separate section on a different source. Could you try again. Please comment about why you took what I wrote out? What did I add, that caused you to remove this because the source did not support it?

Is pure drama seeking-- the discussion was on the same page, and readily quite viewable.

@Guy it is precisely because I saw the same behaviour that led to the ArbCom case that I posted to NYB, and I trust you will note my temperate demeanor even when others seek drama. Cheers.Collect (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A "heads up" would be something neutral, not signaling out a particular editor. Your comments were "We have a new owner...". We can agree to disagree but I think this is as much of an accusation of ownership as the posts above. And as much claim otherwise you never addressed on the talk page why you reverted my edit, which started Cwobeel trying to put something similar in using a different source. But you've never addressed why you reverted my edit and started the mess, and it is not discussed on the talk page (if it is, please link the diff). I am not asking you to repeat, simply justify your revert. Thenub314 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I don't appreciate your calling this a "drama board." I only came here after numerous attempts to get Scal (and you, too, for that matter, as has been pointed out) to stop making personal comments and to just keep it on content. (As an aside, for anyone like me who doesn't know Latin, "Verb. sap." apparently means a word is enough to the wise. I don't know why Collect included it, but there you go.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe these articles are under discretionary sanctions? Are the parties aware? Guy (Help!) 09:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Scalhotrod and I were reminded on 6 May 2014. It was/is a little scary for me coming here. I simply want the personal stuff in inappropriate places to stop. (I've asked him to bring personal stuff to my talk page, or at least notify me when he brings it up elsewhere.) When he said that he wasn't "really interested in wasting time putting together the difs and evidence to report it ," I then replied by asking him to keep his comments on content. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that some editors are behaving very BATTLEGROUNDy at the article under dispute. However, I don't think any of the editors' behavior is really actionable as far as administrator intervention goes. (I don't know how this changes in the light of ArbCom discretionary sanctions.) As far as I can tell, most of the drama seems to center around the use of various sources in that article. This is a content dispute, and so not something that ANI can deal with. Presumably what is needed is for someone otherwise uninvolved to check the sources under discussion. That would suggest that mediation is a viable approach, at least with an experienced editor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the comments cited above amount to personal attacks versus the attempt at communication and the sharing of viewpoints, then I've been "attacked" by more Editors and Admins than I care to remember. Lightbreather is a fairly new User and seems to be going through a "Misplaced Pages indoctrination process" of sorts that many others have gone through where active Editors are learning how to interact with this community and understand its processes. That said, her edit history and contributions speak for themselves. In my opinion, LB has a personal bias that affects her editing of gun related articles that she has alluded to here and here. Furthermore, I was not the first, nor the only Editor to bring up the issue of ownership activity with LB. The first instance I know of it was here. My impression of this Editor is that WP policy or procedure is relevant only when it suits her needs or objectives. Such as the recent RfC here regarding the article name of the Assault weapons legislation article and then a switch to a Move Request. I remember going through this stage and evolving past it, I hope that LB does the same.

I have a quote on my Talk page that states one of my viewpoints towards editing, "Here on Misplaced Pages, it's OK to be an idiot or do something stupid as long as you are willing to take responsibility and own up to it when you are called on it. - Source Unknown". I have "mea culpa'd" more times than I can remember and then I've thanked the person for explaining what I did wrong. I have even thanked them for the time it took to go through the process of explaining it. It is unfair of me to expect a similar attitude from Lightbreather, but I am entitled to expect her to be Civil and adhere to policy which includes not gaming the WP system or running roughshod over any editors that do not agree with her exact stance, exact wording of content, or use of a particular source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Above is virtually the same as you posted two days ago (8 May 2014) on the GPUS talk page yesterday:

So you're admitting to POV editing like you alluded to here and here? --Scalhotrod ... 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So I'll say here what I said there: What the heck are you talking about? All that I've "alluded to" is WP:STEWARDSHIP, and Don't shoot the messenger. Translating that to "LB has a personal bias that affects her editing" is your work - not mine. (ALL editors have biases that (potentially) affect their editing. But what you discuss with colleagues in the day-to-day editing environment are the individual edits, not their biases.) I am asking again: If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page, or, if you take it elsewhere, notify me so that I may defend myself. And either way, provide diffs, please. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as editing practice, I am a little bit concerned by the lack of clarity in relation to this this edit by Collect (which Thenub314 has specifically raised in this discussion). Simply restating the edit summary on the talk page isn't especially helpful when a request for clarification is raised on the talk page, and the cited source is quoted alongside or juxtaposed against the article text (which appears to have happened here). Collect, even if the query was expressed in a fashion which seemed dramatic, I am sure it would not be that difficult to clearly establish why or how the source is not being followed or which part of the article text amounted to editorial opinion being interpolated in the article. So could you please assist, with a view of resolving the concern raised by Thenub314 and so that this ANI does not become a matter about multiple users? In particular, in this section of the article talk page, can you clearly specify which part(s) of the article text you removed here was editor opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This was begun as a discussion of personal attacks by Scalhotrod. The attacks were largely "serious accusations" of ownership. When the data shows that an editor has made over 85% of the last 200 edits on an article it is a reasonable expectation that other editors will see ownership issues. To recognize that one editor is the dominant force on a page is not a personal attack. The case that this accusation was a personal attack is not made. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. First, there were two accusations. One is canvassing, the other, repeated at least three times, is ownership - and neither with evidence. Nowhere in WP:OWNERSHIP does it say that how many edits an editor makes, or a certain percentage of total edits to an article, is an example of ownership behavior. Nowhere. It does say to "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor," and that "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack." Further, WP:STEWARDSHIP says, "Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part."

I am saying that unless someone has evidence against me that they want to cite with DIFFS, I'd like the accusations, attacks, and speculations to stop right now. Let's keep it on content. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request. At some point, it becomes disruptive to continually make the same accusation without any intention of filing a report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate it is a reasonable request if taken at face value, but there lies the crux of the problem. When we (myself and other editors) try to discuss edits with her, she makes statements that usually include something like (or to the effect of) "I believe...", "I feel...", "The source I'm using says...". In other words, she seems to take personally the edits that she makes. So then whenever anyone makes a comment about her edit style, she interprets it as a personal attack (hence this ANI) versus just an observation or comment on her pattern or style of editing. She then requests that "anyone with a problem" with her take it to her Talk page which makes no sense because we're trying to discuss content and WP content policy. Its this endless cycle that has become frustrating to several other editors who don't share her exact views. We would all like to be reasonable with LB if she would afford us the same courtesy. That includes backing down or just waiting long enough for others to have their views expressed so consensus can be reached. Patience is virtue that is sadly lacking on WP... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I ask you to stop making personal comments - or if you're going to, to provide diffs - and you answer with more personal comments and still no diffs? From WP:ETIQ: Argue facts, not personalities. And from WP:TALKNO: When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. Scal, please stop this now.

Is there an admin here who can help me with this? I just want the inappropriate personal comments to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather when are you going to figure out that talking "about" you is not a personal attack at least as WP defines it? You seem to interpret everything said about you as an attack. It's not and the sooner you realize this, the better off we will all be. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod, I think you and I have been getting along better the past day or two, so in a friendly way I am going to level with you. While you may have meant it as a fair warning... Comments like "Do you know the WP:OWN case your building against yourself" (mobile edit so that's a paraphrase) just don't come across that way. LB does have a point. We are all heated, but I suspect if we all try to keep that in mind when we are making posts we can improve these articles without any of us needing formal sanctions. Thenub314 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going to try a different approach on LB's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to report, it looks like we're going to give peace a chance. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I've checked a couple of threads on the Talk page of the "Gun politics in the US", and have noted that Scalhotrod seems to assume an authoritative tone with respect to content policies in one thread repeatedly making erroneous and false claims about WP:NOTABLE.

More specifically, in this thread Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#.22Speculative_nature.22, for example, it took three editors, Thenub314 , ArtifexMayhem and AndytheGrump to refute his baseless assertions on that policy.

I would say that there is a WP:BATTLE mentality evident in the comments by Scalhotrod"WP policy is frustrating, isn't it?" in that thread. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

U, nothing like taking something out of context to spoil the mood, but everyone is entitled to their opinion... Thank you for looking into this, but we're working to get past the pettiness you're highlighting on our own. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been 'taken out of context' - Scalhotrod claimed that sources weren't valid because they didn't meet notability guidelines. It should be noted that Scalhotrod has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since 2007, and has over 3500 main-space edits. I would find it astonishing that anyone with that much experience could be so fundamentally misinformed about elementary policy. Instead, I have to suggest that he clearly knows full well what policy is, but prefers to invent new ones on the fly when it suits his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that I am not as "eloquent" nor as sharp tongued as Andy. Nor am I as inhibited by the guidelines of the site. But I know how creative you are when it comes to seeing varying perspectives on an issue or comment. I understand the policy and was just making my point badly. Nub and I continued out conversation to our mutual satisfaction on his Talk page, but you probably forgot to "check first" again. There was no intent to "invent" anything.... :) Thank you for your input Andy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to trawl through your edits elsewhere to see that you misrepresented policy in an attempt to justify removing content you didn't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Andy, there are lots of things you "don't need to" do, but you do anyway. Its why we all love you you warm, fuzzy curmudgeon...! Happy Monday! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it seems Collect has not adhered to my request above, so I have repeated it on the user talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the onus is on Collect, but the content is being discussed and addressed on the Talk page of "Gun Politics" and some has already been added to the main NRA article. Unless you have some burning desire to keep "pointing fingers" does this need to continue anywhere? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have no desire to point fingers, and merely gave Collect the benefit of the doubt. The idea is to find ways to resolve issues rather than let them fester, and its worth recording if/when he is prepared to follow that through. That said, I have just now noticed that matter has been raised as evidence in the currently open arbitration case so it does not need further follow up over here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just finished reading all this and thoroughly looked over the original two editors contributions and a few others. Observations: Many have engaged in uncivil behavior, ownership of articles and failed to edit in a neutral manner. Lightbreather brought the complaint and a boomerang is a strong possibility because what she has accussed others of she has in fact repeatedly done. Lightbreathers repeated contributions to the same articles speak for themselves. If this is not a clear care of ownership what is? Also noticed another complaint down below from lightbreather in which she failed to notify the editor she acccussed of "Smells fishy" to which when queried she played dumb. It appears as another attempt to run off editors and the IP involved appeared none to happy. Would a neutral and unbiased admin look this over please? Thanks 208.54.35.173 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Also noticed this complaint by Lightbreather: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608612163#Clarification_request:_Gun_control_.28Gaijin42.29 While not an original tactic to drive others away to own an article it presents strong evidence of gaming the system. Is an Arbcom discussion appropriate now. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal and I made peace. This last complaint by IP user 208.54.35.173 smells fishy, too. I suspect he/she is the same user from that fishy discussion. Can someone close this discussion, please? Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• You changed your tactics when this attempt to silence SCALHOTROD failed. I just posted a complaint that is relative to this so please leave open. This appears to be another attempt to Game the system by Lightbreather in my opinion. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth runs unapproved bot

User:Werieth runs an unapproved bot which works 24/7 and inserts invalid links to archives at mass scale. It also secures its commits by removing at least one archive.is link in each transaction thus making undo impossible. See Special:Contributions/Werieth and WP:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archivedotisbot#WeriethBot 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont work 24/7 and I am not a bot. Im sorry if you like archive.is spam but it needs removed per the RfC. Werieth (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You must at least separate removing archive.is links and other actions and not doing it in single commit. Also, inserting links at mass scale requires bot approval and test run. A lot of links that you have inserted are invalid.

I am not talking about the links you remove, I am talking about the thousands of links you inserted in the commits you commented as "remove archive.is". On each archive.is link you removed, you inserted 10 other links. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Im just replacing/adding links to the most current archived copy of a source. archive.org already has over half a million uses I didnt know I needed to get approval for something that is already in the guideline and is suggested practice. No Im not going to make a dozen small edits to an article, to separate every little thing I do. When I edit an article Im going to do as much as I can at the same time to make it easier for me. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inserting archive.org links and its caveats has been discussed many times. It is not so easy and many approved bots had been blocked because they choose wrong snapshots. Peeking "the most current archived copy" is usually a bad choice. There have been bots which parsed article's history and peeked archive.org snapshot most close to the date the link appeared in the article. Even they had many false positives and was finally stopped. That is why you have to apply your bot for approval. The bot approval team mostly consists of the authors of the bots I mentioned, they know a lot about archive.org and about the algorithms which snapshot to peek and how to check for "soft 404" and other invalid snapshots, that you did insert a lot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not a bot, but given that the AN thread was pretty clear that a new RFC is needed and that multiple users have clearly petitioned mass removal - this is pretty much spitting in the face of the users. If this was done six months ago it would be "following the RFC", but no part of the RFC was actually followed until the opposition mounted. This is action is WP:POINTY in the least - many links CANNOT be replaced by Archive.org or Webcite and time and time again, the removal results in purposely creating more Linkrot. I find it shameful that bad faith and unsupported allegations of blatant fear-mongering were used to condemn an entire website because the actions on a single sockpuppeteer. Even the allegation that Archive.is website is "spam" is gross mis-characterization of the facts. Archive.is has thousands of valid and working links that are irreplaceable at this moment and they have no ads or malware - it does not even begin to meet the definition of "spam". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a bot. But based on the amount of links she/he inserted, I would say that she/he spent only a small fraction of a second to evaluate the quality of a archived snapshot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is/was not spam. Archive.is was spamming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree it doesn't look like a bot, but I'd say it's generally a bad idea to do anything on a mass scale that requires human review and judgement. Inserting the current archived copy of a source is, more often than not, going to make verification much more difficult to users following those citations. Care was taken to present the snapshot containing the relevant information from a specific time period, which likely changed since then. @Werieth:, I think removing the archive.is links is supported by the RFC (for now), but I urge you to stop doing archive updating unless you are reviewing each instance. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest commit by User:Werieth. You see, archive.org link was added next to the link to alexa.com in the website infobox. What is the purpose to add link to 2009 archive of alexa.org rating of the website? The link to alexa.com is just a reference showing where OKBot takes the rating of the site once in a month. Moreover, the archived snapshot is broken. What was a purpose of this commit? Why it is commented as "replace/remove archive.is"? Could it be done by a (responsible) human? It looks like either a bug in an unsupervised bot or an act of vandalism. I tend to think the former. If she/he is not a bot then she/he is a vandal. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are a harassing troll, and I wont feed you any more so drop it and never post to my talk page again. Werieth (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If the change of 43 Things has been made by a human and you claim that you are that human, you should be able to explain why did you do this change (and many other like this), shouldn't you? So far, the unapproved unsupervised bot is the most realistic explanation. And note that it has nothing to do with the buzz around archive.is RCF. I am talking about other your changes. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. This edit is careless if not script/bot done. Werieth's edit added an invalid archive snapshot to a working page, the second was a current archive to one that is inaccurate and the third change removed the Archive.is one and left a useless link that doesn't even resolve properly which WOULD work if he bothered to correct the link. Sorry, but this is detrimental editing and needs to be stopped now - the changes are actually harming Misplaced Pages and are being done without care. The method doesn't matter anymore, the entire edit was bad and careless - Werieth is not doing this with a minimal amount of caution and care. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  ChrisGualtieri with the cnet link, I have seen that same format quite a bit where archive.is spam just prefixed archive.is and a date/time to the URL. I thought from the dozen or so I checked, returned the link target back to where it should have been pointing, I guess that schema isnt 100% accurate like I thought. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: My apologies, I misunderstood/misread what you are actually doing. I thought you were replacing archive links of a specific time period with the most current archive link, but I see you're just adding archive links. I struck the relevant sections of my comment. 90.163.54.9, I think you should disengage at this point. You can participate in any future RFCs about the topic to get your opinion in. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: yeah I was only adding archive urls to citations that lacked them. Any existing url, or archive url wasnt touched (except for archive.is links) Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Spike Wilbury: Automated inserting of archive.org links was discussed too many times in the past, and all such activities has been blocked by community decisions for malfunction or being not accurate enough. No one of those bots is active at the moment. Is there any need to open a "future RFC" and collect the opinions again? There is bot approval procedure and test run to check if User:Werieth can offer a superior technology. But now she/he runs her/his bot under her/his user account and abuses the archive.is filter to make the changes irreversible. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this qualifies as automated. I meant that there might be another RFC about removing archive.is links. Please cease the accusations that he is running a bot, and that he is abusing his editing privileges. Editors certainly aren't required to separate their edits to make it more convenient for people to revert them. Werieth seems to be responsive to reasonable questions and comments, so I'm not seeing an issue here that requires admin action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• She/he already asserted that she/he runs an automated tool by saying "the dozen or so I checked", although he inserted more than thousand links. Also, the accuracy of his peeking of archive.org snapshots (even if they were made by a human) is lower that accuracy of H33lBot and other defunct bots. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I cease the accusations but I insist that her/his activity to be approved by the WP:Bot Approval Group as mass inserting of archive.org and webcitation.org links is definitively within their scope. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No I didnt, What I said was that I had checked the schema of archive.is links using the prefixed format (similar to the case with CNET above) using a 10-20 samples and all of them resolved when I converted the archive.is/<date>/http://<real URL> to just http://<real URL>. After checking repeatedly I made an assumption that all links in that format followed the same pattern. Please stop placing words in my mouth and harassing me. Ive gotten 10+ "Thanks" and a barnstar for this work. BAG has zero jurisdiction on human editing, Now shove off. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• You made this assumption and... what? and then run the script which used the found pattern as a template, right? BAG has jurisdiction on mass scale actions, and also its member has a lot of experience in working with archive.org. You repeat the mistakes they made years ago. Also there is an option in the bot approval request, a bot can be either Automatic, Supervised, or Manual. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is the last Im going to post here, if anyone else has questions feel free to raise them directly with me, but this troll is getting on my nerves. No Its a matter of when I saw that particular type of archive.is link I just removed the associated archive.is/<date> junk and restored the original url. Now its time to remember WP:DFTT. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats not quite true. WP:MEATBOT applies I think. Obviously that only matters if the edits you are making are considered disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: Bot approval request for remove archive.is links is already filed by User:Kww. What User:Werieth does is something different, albeit he tries to camouflage her/his activity as "following Archive.is RFC" and "removing archive.is links". On each edit, she/he removes 1 archive.is link and insert many unchecked links to archive.org and webcitation.org. Not instead of archive.is links, but in other places of the articles. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe given some of the timestamps on those edits that it isnt a bot. Multiple unrelated articles in the space of two minutes with edits of 600-1500+? Technically its possible if you had the edits prepared in advance and were just cutting and pasting or find/replace. But its unlikely. Could someone with more bot-experience do an analysis of the timeframes & edit counts please? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I pinged some BAG members to join the discussion. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bot or not Werieth's actions are disruptive. I have highlighted the damage he has caused to the articles he has targeted, leaving many references now dead and without archives, he has made changes to user inserted archive.is links, putting articles back several steps in terms of quality and making no effort to rectify them even when I have taken the time to point out each and every reference he has damaged or outright killed. He is content to edit war and call anyone against him a troll and quite frankly he needs either blocking temporarily or to be banned from making these sweeping changes, as he does not have the intention to carry them out properly or deal with the consequences. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Im going to be frank here, you are being a WP:DICK. You came to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism, disruptive editing, and you where using profanity. At that point I decided to ignore your rants and abusive behavior, in a few days after you had a chance to cool down and see that your abusive behavior gets you zero results I was going to go ahead and see what more could be done about the archive.is links that I couldnt previously replace. Had you come to my talk page and behaved appropriately, like Prhartcom (talk · contribs) did, you would have gotten the same outcome, almost 100% replacement. In the case of Batman: Arkham Origins I was able to get all but 1 URL additional archives (27 other links I created archives for). Once you decide to behave like an adult, not make threats, or use profanity we can work collaboratively. Until then good bye. Werieth (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Humor: WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you —Prhartcom (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Since the filing IP is probably the same individual who spammed the links in the first place, I have blocked it. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  You will replace the archives, your attitude has earned you nothing and had you done the job properly in the first place I would never needed to ever converse with you. The faster you do it, the faster I can proceed with never talking to you again. But you will do it. And you've still left 23 references without an archive, I do not care that you replaced a small portion of the archives YOU removed, I care that you have not replaced the rest. And when this point was broached about the Joker, you simply continued your unwanted assault on articles by moving on to Batman: Arkham Origins. So do not take the stance that you are a withered and delicate flower hard done by, you deliberately vandalised the articles and they will be repaired. How hard that has to be is only on you, you do not get to demand courtesy from you, you forfeit it the moment you ignored my complaint about the Joker and did another article. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy, and as an outside observer here, I hope I can suggest that this incident appears ready to be closed. Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello DWB, now that this incident is probably going to be closed, I'd like to delicately give you some advice: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There's no point in starting a sentence complaining about someone else's attitude when you have an attitude like yours. You gotta agree you haven't been assuming good faith. It's hard, believe me I know (especially when you know you're right!), but it's a rule around here, and had you followed it, you could have made your point AND had your archives replaced by now. As it stands, you made your choice to use vinegar, so no one is paying any attention to you anymore, and I'm afraid you are doing that work yourself. No hard feelings, I hope. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Werieth is probably the same individual who had been known as User:Betacommand and has been blocked for running buggy bots. 5.29.191.166 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Block evasion.

• Wikipediocracy is a place full of rumors. There's very little evidence that these two are the same person, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Betacommand's bots are still working (note the Last Modified). It is not some script forgotten 2 years ago. Some folders have only files created in 2014. Betacommand is still among us. 5.29.191.166 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Block evasion

• He is known for still providing assistance, and running reports upon request. see a barnstar for one such report on his talk page. From the looks of it people either email him or he notices a request on a notice board, runs the report and has someone leave a note about it. It also appears that his SPI reports never stopped being generated for SPI cases. It looks like he probably moved on from enwiki, and is probably working in of our sister projects. Given the abuse that is regularly thrown out, personal attacks, and other stuff Im actually surprised that we haven't lost a larger group of our editors. Werieth (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ needs to be blocked, or at least topic-banned

Russell Targ has an account as Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP appears to be 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• All of his edits focus on his article. He is a single purpose account.
• He has tried mass censorship of the article.
• He was blocked for edit warring, only to resume edit warring a day after the block ended.
• He socks on his IP address to continue to edit war
• He has accused the site of libel, and said that he is "prepared to take all necessary measures public, Internet or private to discover a path to redressing this libel." He claims that this is not a legal threat, but how is it not?
• Per @Goblin Face: (see), Targ has been doing off-site recruiting for meatpuppets.

Targ is not here to build an encyclopedia, but promote his work and whitewash mainstream science's views on his work. If he was a nobody, I don't believe we'd put up with this. He needs to be blocked unless he agrees to a topic ban on articles relating to him or his work. If there's an appearance of further meatpuppetry, off-site collusion, or backscratching between him and Josephson, I'd say an indef would be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The thread this is attached to is dead. You won't get any visibility here. Copy it to the bottom as a new section. I only saw it because you mentioned it at ANEW and I knew what to look for.--v/r - TP 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, moved it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If I see this right, I have to add that there are apparent copyright issues at Russell Targ as well as at Sensory leakage, Remote viewing and Harold E. Puthoff vs. if I can find that much trouble in a single Google search , and the first one I tried, ... there's probably more. Sadly, I am out for the day, and don't have time to dissect, investigate or report the breadth of this. --j⚛e decker 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikiblame indicates that it wasn't him, and it'd be against his MO. He's trying to white-wash the parts about his work being pseudoscience. That part does need to be more paraphrased, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ on his account Torgownik (talk · contribs) has a history of removing reliable references from his article , inserting personal commentary into his article and telling people to not edit his article , attacking editors as "biased" against ESP , repeatedly removing any mention of "pseudoscience" from his article, which he has admitted to , ranted on various Misplaced Pages boards with threats and another rant here telling Misplaced Pages to remove pseudoscience from his article whilst promoting nonsensical psychic claims . He refuses to listen to what anyone has said. Considering Targ is now on blogs and forums asking people to come edit his article, this is a case of meat puppetry. I think a topic ban would be suitable here from editing his own article or related parapsychological articles.

Targ has also been causing trouble on his IP address deliberately 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs) i.e. section blanking references he doesn't like from his article and spamming the same rant he posted on his account . The meat puppetry is also an issue because we now have another IP 70.164.250.214 (talk · contribs) copying Targ's rant onto the article itself and deleting references, example .

Targ is also a friend with Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) who has also been copying Targ's rant on the talk-page of the article. Josephson had no interest in Targ's article until Targ posted about it on his face book account, this is another case of meat puppetry. Also note Josephson has been edit-warring on the article and removing the claim remote viewing is pseudoscience, example . Josephson may be a separate issue but I could easily list many diffs, he has caused trouble on a number of parapsychological articles I.e. by trying to delete certain references or arguing with people on talk-pages because he psychic beliefs are not supported on the article. I think a way to resolve this would to ban both Josephson and Targ from editing parapsychology articles because they have shown they are not here to build an encyclopedia but just cause disruption. Goblin Face (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

JUST A NOTE: There is a discussion at the COI noticeboard about this issue, at this section. -- Atama頭 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe Decker, you were correct there was half a line copied from a book word for word. I have removed it. Goblin Face (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: Cool, thanks. I assume you caught that fragment in all four articles I listed? And Ian--thanks for reminding me of WikiBlame, and pointing out that the issue wasn't from this user. I apologize for that being a distraction to the main questions here. Best, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked a number of accounts and IPs involved in this, warned Brian, and semiprotected the Targ talk page to act as some layer of defense against additional meatpuppetry. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:: Thank you.

Otherwise, could we just assume that the next block will be an indef? Particularly in the absence of other improvements and prior serious problems? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say that anyone's next block is going to be an indef, because I prefer to use the least punitive measures possible that successfully protects the encyclopedia. In some cases, and this certainly might be one of them, that next step is in fact an indef. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indef-blocking or indef-self-topic-banning subjects of WP articles because they say we're biased is a really aggressive thing to do. Try to think how something like that is going to sound outside the echo chamber of our own little cult here. At least limit yourself to doing one week, two week, three week, four, but not one to infinity! I know there are people on WP who have literally been blocked more than 20 times and still edit. I think it would be more productive to suggest a positive rather than a negative solution - urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with, in order to get a feel for how WP editing is supposed to work. Wnt (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Like What Wnt said. Let's get a desirable outcome out of this.--v/r - TP 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with"? Yeah, right. Targ is going to be really keen on editing Misplaced Pages to take his mind off things, isn't he...

Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure he'd like to "improve" the articles on Uri Geller, Ingo Swann and so on. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wnt is completely right. We should not ban biography subjects from the talk pages of the articles on them without compelling reason (active credible legal threats being an obvious example). We should block them for escalating periods of they edit-war on the article or engage in other disruptive behaviour. We should listen to what they have to say, collapse arguments that have been made and discussed previously, and restrict "brand new editors" recruited outside, from causing more disruption. Targ has a right to his opinion, even though it's overwhelmingly rejected by the relevant scientific community. He does not have a right to endlessly re-state that remote viewing is not pseudoscience, because the problem is not that we call it this, but that reliable independent sources do. We point that out, we damp down attempts to string a futile argument along, and we concentrate on improving the article.

We all know that an article that does not, say, include some facet of a previous career, is an omission by editors based on not looking hard enough. To the subject this appears as if Misplaced Pages is deliberately suppressing legitimate achievements. It's wrong, but it's a completely understandable view.

So I urge continued patient explanation, and low tolerance to outbreaks of rhetorical exuberance on any side. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've provisionally unblocked Targ, and given a much better explanation of why I originally blocked him on his talk page than my crappy initial block message. Hopefully he takes it to heart, but I will be keeping an eye on him, as I am sure others will be. Canvassing, something that's hard to perceive as anything but a legal threat, socking, and editwarring is a pretty long list of things to have racked up in his short tenure here, but hopefully he'll get the memo. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally have a high tolerance for patiently explaining things to biography subjects even in the face of relentless repetition of declined or meritless demands, and I think that Targ is not likely to cause much disruption as he is not much interested in anything other than his own biography. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Denial (IDHT) regarding denialism and Denial

User:NLZ06 - not quite clear what they're up to

NLZ06 joined Misplaced Pages 6 days ago, but shows a remarkable enthusiasm for constructing new pages, some surprisingly complete (like Kelly Hayes-Raitt).

Thus far they've managed NavTech Security Pty Ltd (A7), Visionborne (G11, previously A7ed and G11ed, and I wonder if the G11ed content was from a previously deleted version), Austin Hollins (created as copyvio of , AFDed, edited by other editors), Visionbooks (G11), Dyacon (A7, G11), Dyacon Weather Instruments (A7), W3 kids (G11), Kool Living Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center (A7, G12). Not yet deleted are Rezvani BEAST, Rezvani (both hagiographic in tone, and really, two articles?), a company logo (mislabelled as under CC license, I'll bet), Kelly Hayes-Raitt (well formed article, but massive puff piece about how marvellous she is, and it does seem _slightly_ remarkable that a new editor would come up with that lot), removal of an OR tag without any edits to fix issues, an edit rather favourable to the subject of the article, and a page blanking and subsequent reasonless AFD at Banc de Binary, a page with a history of COI editors (in sockfarms, sometimes; indeed, originally stemming from a morning277 sock).

I don't know what's going on here - WP:COMPETENCE, a misguided PR person, or what - but I don't think this user is really acting in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the range of topics, I'd say it's a paid editor, although not an awfully competent one. For one thing, they haven't quite figured out how turn bare urls into proper references. Per this conversation, the editor says he/she helps "friends" who supply the text and he/she adds references and puts it onto Misplaced Pages. If so, NLZ06 has quite a variety of friends. I suspect the Kelly Hayes-Raitt article is full of spurious references, almost none of which are independent of her, e.g. this one (scroll down) to "verify" that she "is a popular lecturer at colleges and other venues". Many of the others are to blogs. All the references in that article need checking. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Same person as the blocked User:Newzealand123. --jpgordon 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the article creations that haven't been significantly edited by others. Only Austin Hollins remains and it is at AfD.--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, did you block on the basis of checkuser? If not, there may be more socks. I'm mighty suspicious of the fact that NLZ06 uploaded this image to Commons today and, lo and behold, an article about that person sprang fully formed an hour earlier complete with infobox and by an entirely new user with their first edit, who then added the image an hour later. See Robert Lyn Nelson. The initial version was the worst piece of promotional drivel I've seen for a long time. I've since taken my red pencil to it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I only checkusered as far as that one user and the one I mention above. However, what caught my attention was that AFD for Banc De Binary, which has been the locus for some questionable editing practices. --jpgordon 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In this revision one of the IP socks _changes my suggested outcome_ in the AFD. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the IP changing Pinkbeast's comment from "Weak keep" to "Delete" and !voting "delete" himself, there are three four other SPAs with registered accounts !voting delete who have registered in the last 2 days, two three of them within minutes of !voting at the AfD as their first edit. I've marked them all as SPAs, but Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary needs eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that discussion caught my eye, too. Lots of strange stuff going on there - it has all the appearance of a large group of either socks or friends conspiring to get an article deleted. The delete !votes are coming thick and fast, but the reasons given appear to be constructed without any reference to the actual article. Not to mention the changing of a !vote noted above. Would a speedy close of the AfD be appropriate? GoldenRing (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary needs eyes, as does Banc de Binary itself. There's a large PR and SEO operation promoting Banc de Binary; the first 100 or so Google results are mostly promotional, and the SEC and CFTC enforcement actions have been pushed to page 3 in Google search results. The problems on Misplaced Pages may be part of a larger strategy to de-emphasize the bad news. The effort to delete the article suggests that is the case. John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions. See User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80#Please take a look at this for a previous discussion I had with administrator User:HJ Mitchell.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to follow me to other articles and is always disagreeing with me. Here is his latest edit to undo my edit. How did you find that article? He followed me to that article. I previously told him to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages but he is continuing. At the chiropractcic talk page I explained we should use secondary sources but he claims the the sources are great and wants to proceed in adding primary sources to the article when we already have secondary sources with similar information. He should not be allowed to continue this behaviour. User:HJ Mitchell previously indef-blocked User:Jayaguru-Shishya for disruptive behaviour. He is continuing to comment on me on the talk page rather than solely focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. You already asked that on 6 May 2013 at administrator Doc James's Talk page, where you appeared all of a sudden commenting my post that had nothing to do with you. I even asked you there to provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to? So far, you have refused to answer me that. You did all that on an administrator's Talk page, but still you bring these claims to WP:ANI even before noticing me about it (on my Talk page 18:52; on WP:ANI 18:48).

As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.

All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine, and Chiropractic. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.

Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: ,

as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: . "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Quack's interpretation. As his history suggests he in fact is being disruptive and claiming ownership of alt-med articles. This seems to be an attempt to cast jayguru in a negative light when in fact he has been respectful and playing by the rules on the talk pages. Also, quack is often trying to censor and ban people who disagree with his POV to limit the debate so he can continue to own alt-med articles. DVMt (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved but you have not moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a primary source and simplified the wikilink but User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverted my edits and removed the tags for the primary source and he has falsely accused me of violating 3RR. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to be disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread: . There is a complete summary of your behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to make false accusations against me. I started a discussion about the primary source and wikilink but he is continuing to refuse to collaborate. He is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack you have a long Hx of disruptive editing at CAM articles, have been warned as recently as of yesterday and consistently try to discredit other editors who have a differing POV than yours. This is a bogus report on Jayguru and it's simply an attempt to smear and get him banned from the articles at which he edits. Looking at the past, I don't see Jayguru being reported in the past, whereas yours has been constant since 2008. You broke the conditions of your wiki bail and do so with increasing boldness. When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, best to discuss it and resolve it as opposed to running to admins to try and do your dirty work. DVMt (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:86.174.240.211 - obvious troll is an obvious troll, impersonation of an embassy worker

Now there has been an issue regarding User:86.174.240.211, who is not registered with an account on Misplaced Pages and is an IP user.

On the Filipino people article, the first issue was that he added biased information on the infobox.

By the messages that he left on my talk page, it is now obvious that he is a troll who is vandalizing pages, using personal threats and impersonating an embassy worker.

Here are the messages he left on my talk page,

"Would you like to stop vandalizing wikipedia?, it destroys the filipino and the country's reputation. I work on behalf of the Spanish embassy in Manila and your stubbornness result's the foreign people's bad oppinnion towards the philippine people."

"The King of Spain is going to read your messages and this article, so you better stop your stupidity. code name: amor"

This must need immediate attention. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I have reported both users for edit warring: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PacificWarrior101 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:86.174.240.211 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ). G S Palmer (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked both editors per the report at WP:ANEW (PacificWarrior101 and the IP). They've been edit-warring since May 11, and it has been pretty much non-stop, with reverts getting more and more frequent (I count 9 reverts by PacificWarrior101 in the past 24 hours, and 7 from the IP). The article talk page was last edited May 4. Neither editor has been blocked previously, so I thought 24 hours was a reasonable duration. -- Atama頭 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the edit warring blocks, but in light of comments impugning the intelligence of people from the Philippines, and the possible impersonation of a diplomatic worker, I think a block of greater length would not be unreasonable for the 86' IP. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For edit-warring, I judged both editors to be equally culpable. The edits to the article itself from the IP aren't clearly disruptive. I felt that an equal block on both sides to be warranted. The talk page comments from the IP, however, are a different story. If someone wants to block the IP for longer on that basis, I won't object. Insulting the people of the Philippines is a personal attack, though I'm not sure I'd extend the block based on that alone (or some ridiculous story about contacting the King of Spain). I looked over the IP's contributions over the past few days (at other articles aside from this one) and if they're vandalizing, it's a pretty subtle form. -- Atama頭 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What's really ridiculous is that 86.174.240.211 account geolocates to the UK. So, all of those assertions about working at a Spanish embassy in the Philippines is clearly a lie (if it wasn't already obvious). Liz 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I left the IP an additional warning about the personal attacks and other nonsense. If they continue after the block expires the next block will be for much longer. -- Atama頭 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. G S Palmer (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, it's just one change to the article. I have that article on my watchlist. -- Atama頭 01:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: the geolocation, I'd seen that myself, but it's the general fact that the IP is claiming affiliation to a diplomatic organization that I find offensive. Much in the same way as assassinating a diplomat is a crime against the law of nations, impersonating one (even poorly) on Misplaced Pages is tantamount in my mind to falsely claiming to be a law enforcement officer in a dispute. It's just harmful to the community in general when someone does a bullshit claim of authority (whether it's claiming to be a cop, admin, or something else), and not the sort of joking around we should be taking lightly. That's how I see it anyway. I see nothing wrong with the stance taken in this case, just that I would have blocked the IP longer. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding current content

A MrBill3 decided my additional text, sourced from a recent news publication, should not be printed without citation, which I had omitted in error. I can add it, of course but the text has gone. Is it stored? Where do I add the citation if the text is missing? I do not wish to have to retype it as it was a task in itself. I read lots of text which is noted 'citation needed'. This would have been a better first step. I would have been able to add it quickly. This is new - I have added/updated text before. In fact it is noteworthy that in one piece I updated, there was elsewhere text relating to an anticipated action for 2013. Clearly this either happened or did not, but it is now text which does not make sense. Is it just left to anyone who happens to feel like establishing the facts of the matter in 2014? Cheers, djRayC — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjRayC (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not an ANI issue, but I'm guessing this is the revert being complained of. Anyway, I've notified MrBill3 of this discussion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Dj. Yes, every edit ever made at Misplaced Pages is maintained in the article history (with a few exceptions when admin need to delete something ugly). You can click the "View History" button on the upper of the article page to see it. For future reference, you should check out the Teahouse. It is staffed with a bunch of exceptionally nice people who hang out solely to answer questions like this. They are willing to answer any basic questions you have about Misplaced Pages. This board you posted to is called ANI, and is really reserved for problems like serial vandalism and when editors are fighting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Speaking of ugly, is anyone monitoring the oversight email? I sent something there about 3 hours ago and have gotten no response. John from Idegon (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Unsourced, unencylopedic content with improper text formatting and talk, Viva La Vega STiki! Seriously though anyone finding problems with my use of STiki please feel free to bring the issue to my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishy IP user

• Update: WOOHOO! Drmies wins $10! SOMEBODY better pay up! Drmies (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

There is an IP user address 172.56.11.104 that is making mostly gun control edits today. This address' first edit (and only edit until today) was 2 March 2014, and that subject is one under which a few (four?) editors were topic banned 30 April 2014 as the result of a looong ArbCom. Something smells fishy to me. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a standardized ArbCom approved Discretionary Sanctions warning? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ponder that reply, Drmies. It's been a long day and I'm not firing on all pistons right now. Also, I don't have much experience with analyzing the behaviors of, or how to handle, IP editors. Or post-ArbCom protocol either. Perhaps after a night's rest I'll "get it." Lightbreather (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Citing 3RR, and then making a variety of threats towards other editors, does suggest a longer and more colourful history, but I'm completely lost as to their recent contributions. James12345 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Very strange behaviour. The IP user claims to have "retired" now and hasn't edited in the last few hours. WaggersTALK 11:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect he/she is now using IP address 208.54.35.173. In Personal attacks discussion higher up on this page, he's asked an admin to look me over. This is a new experience for me. Any suggestions? Is there a Wiki word for this kind of behavior? Lightbreather (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence shows you are likely trying to cover your tracks by shifting blame and pretending to be ignorant. Lightbreather's undetered attempts at Gaming the System have caught up with her. Lightbreather contributions shows tenditious editing and taking many editors to Arb and then pretending to be ignorant about terms and procedures. I am not buying that. I am very determined so be careful about laying wild accussations because of Boomerang. If another admin takes the time to thoroughly investigate Lightbreather's track record a boomerang is very likely in my opinion. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had enough and have opened a complaint. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

IP User Vandalizing a Page

There is an IP user by the name of 2602:306:25A5:82A9:64FF:179:13E7:7BF8 (And other IPs such as 2602:306:25A5:82A9:95D2:E1AC:6604:534C, 2602:306:25A5:82A9:4021:2EAC:E8AF:CFD3, 2602:306:25A5:82A9:9020:B8B9:8C1A:2CA0) that has created vandalism at the Vortexx article, deleting current shows and replacing them with other such as Lego City, Batman Beyond, and SpoderMen (which dont even air on the block) I've given him multiple warnings that I would contact an admin about this issue if he doesn't stop, and he still continues to revert the page to his vandalism shows. --GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't easily block someone who's always changing IP addresses. That's why we have semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A range block may be possible, it looks like all IP edits from 2602:306:25A5:82A9::/64 are the same disruptive editor, on several articles (some now protected, others not). Other IP addresses used are 98.90.88.42 and formerly 2602:306:25A5:9999::/64. There's Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkrgolf, but the accounts and 2601:7 IP are probably unrelated. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Simple East Grinstead addition to Media Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Charlesdrakew#East_Grinstead_entry

Hi,

I simply added a relatively new community news website to the appropriate media section of the entry relating to the West Sussex, UK town, East Grinstead. A simple one - liner in the same format as other entries there, with the relevant hyperlink.

This was removed by editor Charlesdrakew

I explained my reason for adding and included some further details about the organisation (as per the talk entry above)

Editor replied with irrelevant, slightly childish, abusive comment about the local MP, who I had mentioned as a supporter of the website.

I tried again with a longer explanation and so far have received no reasoned response.

Looking at other entries by and about this editor - he seems to adopt a rather offhand and rude approach to fellow contributors to Misplaced Pages.

Could someone else review my addition to the East Grinstead entry, which I believe is fair, reasonable and in accordance with the existing content listed in the media section as East Grinstead Online is a comparable, if new media, news organisation

Further info is in the talk entry referenced above.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.208.0 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that his response was not helpful. However, adding links to your own website on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable either. Please read WP:COI. Number 57 10:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the removal being complained of. No admin action needed. Charles' response might be characterized as BITEy, but honestly, linkspam is linkspam. It shouldn't need a more in-depth explanation than Charles gave at the IP's user talk page. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent reverting on Mudvayne pages

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I've never done this before despite using this site for a while. (I've been using this site under another username since 2006, so I'm not new to Misplaced Pages. I just wanted a change.) I'm not sure if this should have been brought up on the edit war report page, but techically he hasn't broken the 3RR rule. A user with the IP 192.42.92.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making changes to the Mudvayne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page and all of the related pages (songs, albums and band members; too many to link to). I know that I don't come off looking good in this as well, since I've made a bunch of reverts to his edits, some of which may not have had sufficient explanation or I may have been rude at times. I'll admit it's because I was tired of having to revert his edits (there are a whole bunch of pages to revert after all), and if I end up getting a block because of this then so be it. However I will say that I was trying to go for a compromise. Most editors believe that nu-metal is their primary genre and there are various sources pointing out the fact, and the IP user believes that it should be progressive metal, and only that. I've tried to change it to just metal (leaving both nu-metal and progressive metal in the gene section) until a consensus could be reached on the talk page, but the user is not interested in discussion. He is adamant that his point of view is correct and while he has posted on the talk page it's only to prove that he's right and then he goes and makes his edits again.

Apart from the fact that Mudvayne have sources that claim they play various genres, the three cherry-picked links that he keeps providing to back himself up have problems. First of all, two of them don't even work and the third one just has progressive metal on a throwaway line on an article about their masks. Second, most of the time the articles have nothing to do with the albums or songs that he's linking them to. However despite having the problem with his links pointed out to him, he still continues to use them. Also note that he's the only person that seems to support the clams of Mudvayne only being a progressive metal act. Any other users reverting edits made by me or other people making changes to his edits were done so erroneously, mostly by users using tools that identified our edits as vandalism (I have gone to the talk pages of users that have reverted my edits), since he manages to cheat the system by providing his same 3 flimsy sources. Anyone who disputes his claims is labelled as someone who "hasn't studied music" or done enough research. He then accuses us of being biased or vandals. (I admit I called him a troll, but he's been rude well before that, and him using the same three links over and over again made it seem like he was having a laugh.) He doesn't understand how sources work. He thinks that he can choose the sources the he agrees with and ignore everything else. We are not trying to remove progressive metal from the list of genres, we're trying to include all the genres they've been noted to play. He also deleted everything from his talk page so I don't think he's interested in discussion. It's worth noting that he's tried to do the same thing on TVTropes which led to suspensions, both, to him and another user he was warring with. I don't think he can be reasoned with. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

SonOfPlisskin, can you provide examples (diffs) illustrating specific conduct you believes violates Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? You've written a lot but not provided much evidence to back up your accusations. Liz 20:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, there are too many edits to give a complete listing (and it can easily be seen from his edit history), but here are a few examples of him using the same links over and over again despite being told that they're not good enough and despite the fact that they're irrelevant to the articles in which he's linking them. 1, 2, 3. Now imagine that 30 times instead of 3. You can also read his discussion here on the Mudvayne page. Instead of trying to find a consensus there and leave the Mudvayne pages either with no genre listed or a more encompassing "metal" tags, he just claims that he's right and goes on an editing spree. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The user has been similarly edit-warring over Mudvayne on TV Tropes and has shown there that they will turn to ban evasion to continue it. 71.170.110.181 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

False accussations by Lightbreather

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

See above for details. Lightbreather has been accussing many here. They are unfounded and in my opinion harrassment of editors to game the system. Lightbreathers contributions show many accussations, tenditious editing, edit warring, and ownership of articles. I never met Lightbreather until I investigated an accussation against an editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks I decided to speak up after much time was devoted to my investigation. She most recently has accussed me of being someone else. Prior she accussed another IP of bein a sock and did not post a notice o their page and played ignorant when asked about it. Prior to that she accussed SCALHOTROD when the evidence was strongly against herself and not SCALhotrod. She also posted another complaint she called Clarification to get another editor out of gun related articles. A check of Lightbreather's contributions will show a definite pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Lightbreather I am now here because when I commented on the complaint she brought against SCALHOTROD she then tried shifting blame to me.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fishy_IP_user

Now she is trying to close the discussion about here above before it boomerangs. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=608697337 Thanks. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I never met Lightbreather until I investigated an accussation against an editor Looks to me like you never edited Misplaced Pages before you "investigated" Lightbreather. Tell us what accounts/IPs you have edited from before? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I see a new account or anonymous user with no other contributions open a thread on ANI stating "I have nothing to do with this but decided to complain anyway", my BS-o-meter goes off. Even if that wasn't the case, this complaint is meritless and quite ironic, as this post is rife with unsupported accusations.--Atlan (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this post alone is quite sufficient grounds to block the IP (and any new incarnations) as an obvious troll. "investigating" contributors and speculating about their personal interests isn't remotely appropriate behaviour, and nothing the IP has done is remotely of benefit to Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Andy would be quick to block an IP because he has made derogatory statements in the past about IP's. Andy also has been recently involved here under the same subject matter as Lightbreather. Andy has history with Lightbreather may share the same bias. And Andy your attitude hurts wikipedia and how you survive censorship is a miracle. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, quite ironic that you casually fling unsupported accusations around in a thread where you complain about false accusations.--Atlan (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Article creation vandalism by obvious socks

Several new (sockpuppet?) editors (Aikonut61 (talk · contribs), Marilione (talk · contribs), Zakbramah (talk · contribs)) keep re-creating Anlu Rodsou each time as a different subject (singer, company, military base, etc.). Could someone salt the article and perhaps do something about the obvious socks? Thank you. - MrX 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, salted by NawlinWiki. That's a start. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• What do we have here--some sort of Brazilian 4chan? Blocks for everyone (I blocked one of them yesterday already.) I don't know if they're socks or meats, and if a CU wants to check they can add appropriate templates, but I'll mark my blocks with a link to the article. Thanks, and thanks NawlinWiki, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: the first series of recreations do appear to be very meaty rather than direct vandalism, so I'll note that and will block the first one, Sladewakenz, not indefinitely, inviting your scrutiny and suggestions. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Drmies. I appreciate your help. - MrX 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

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

IP user 208.54.35.173 appears to have targeted me for WP:HARASSMENT.

• Posts here at ANI:
• Posts on my talk page:
• Posts on other users' talk pages:

What is the best-practice response to this? My feelings keep tottering between puzzled and anxious. Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith - getting a bit crazy over here

Hi everyone. I hate to do this, but, as an admin and someone who is involved in the discussion, I thought it was best to bring this up here so others can sort things out. The discussion taking place here has had the term prude thrown around multiple times, and I hope he'll forgive me, but, User:HiLo48 is not assuming good faith and is really taking things pretty extreme - calling people's comments stupid, claiming people are attacking him, etc. Perhaps he needs to take a break, but, even when I posted a statement asking people to be civil he told me it was attacking . It's really wearing me out, and other people involved in the discussion. Perhaps someone can come by and take a look, or at least remind people to be civil, since I'm not getting anywhere... Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Very typical and long-time behavior of this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26 is one I could find, and I know there are others. G S Palmer (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope that doesn't mean it's OK for them to act like that. I hope someone can step in and be bold. But, I haven't interacted with them before so I didn't know this was standard behavior. Not too healthy, that's for sure! I hope they can step back and take a break. SarahStierch (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope he will be blocked at some point, and the behavior stops.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be not a bad idea to inform him of this thread though.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the ping about that. I really hope things can calm down and they will perhaps reconsider contributing positively - they have made some great contributions to Misplaced Pages! SarahStierch (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Has not risen to the level of incivility. I'm not surprised at his response to your post, you specifically targeted him in it. You escalated things when you accused him of bullying. Frankly, he is obviously heated but not being inappropriate. And Ymblanter's "Very typical and long-time behavior" comments arn't helpful.--v/r - TP 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:TParis! Glad you're participating. Thanks! No where did I state or accuse that the user was bullying anyone (thought I admit, I do fear it happening on either side of the "oppose/support" coin!). I was worried that people could be bullied or bit, which is what I was referring too. I think it's important that administrators keep their eyes on things and make sure people are civil, sadly, HiLo48 was not one of those folks - he seems to think a lot of people are "attacking," him - when many other users are being called "Prudes" "Conservative Christians" "American Christians" "Grammar Nazi's" and other things (not just by him, but he seems to be very filled with rage, and I feel bad about it). I also know that some people might take those as compliments, but, so far it seems people are having their feelings hurt (Prude is considered an offensive thing to call someone in America, at least). I can't protect everyone, but, I think respect is important in these discussions and clearly that is lacking with some folks. I hope people will look at this with a clear mind. I will let my fellow administrators decide the best course of action, and perhaps just merely mentioning it here will help calm the situation. Thank you, SarahStierch (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah - being one of those "American Christians" (I think I'm quite liberal to be considered a prudish or conservative Christian), I see where you are coming from but I think it falls a bit short of your perception of it. And regarding you calling him a bully, it may not be what you intended but the way I read this, it comes off as "We need to cut out the calling people names like 'prude' or I'll report the bullying behavior." That's how I read it. It seems to me that you are calling HiLo48 a bully. Now, I'm not particularly fond of HiLo48 myself. I almost started an Arbcom case about his behavior on the Jesus has risen today DYK ANI thread. And I've seen him bashing Christians and violating the WMF non-discrimination policy just about every time his name has come up. But I just don't see it here.--v/r - TP 23:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And just a heads up, some more craziness ensuing, see summaries here. SarahStierch (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

""Grammar Nazi's". After that apostrophe the Grammar Gestapo may be knocking on your door any minute now. Since when is calling someone an "American Christian" a vile attack? In any case, as far as I can tell the comments are not taunts directed at individuals. He is objecting to what he thinks is prudishness, and the over-representation of American Christians, which he thinks creates systemic bias. Whether this is true of not, it's not what is normally meant by "personal attack". Paul B (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's used as a pejorative, it's an attack. See my essay WP:Politics as a pejorative for my thoughts on it.--v/r - TP 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the text says at all. And it refers to article content. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to address the term "prude": I don't consider that a personal attack, and I'm an American who thinks our country is full of prudes. It can be used in away that is unflattering, but many people proudly self-identify as prudes. In spite of our overly narrow definition at Misplaced Pages, it encompasses more than just someone who is overly modest about sexuality, and common usage is of anyone who shuns anything taboo, morbid, graphic, anti-establishment or sexual. That is not the same as breaking Godwin's Law. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever! I never called anything a "vile attack". I just think it's immature behavior that needs to be curbed. Assuming anyone is anything is just plain uncool, and frankly, as a non-Christian, surely non-prude (I know most of you don't know me personally, but trust me, I'm anything but), I think name calling can go else where. But, I guess I'm wrong. All the more reason why I don't participate in discussions that often anymore - I'm not here to edit Misplaced Pages with people who act like immature kids, I'm here to write quality content and get more people involved in doing so, with people who are "mature" human beings (a joke here and there is awesome, but, name calling like 10 year olds, c'mon). And gods knows name calling isn't one of those ways for succeeding at the latter.. :) (or keeping those of us around who do the first!). Ah well. Perhaps I'm overreacting. Thanks everyone, I'll unwatch this and move along to more important things. Sorry if I wasted peoples time. SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Misplaced Pages has lots of immature people, the idiots will let anyone edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK OK OK I'm back... I was tipped off about this discussion. Sorry, but just because I'm a "sensitive" person and so are other people I know, clearly this is not the first time. But hey...whatever! SarahStierch (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about sensitivity?--v/r - TP 00:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur. Although I'm on the other side of the POTD debate, I do find HiLo's manner to be confrontational, excessively personal, and antagonistic. I also do think that 'prude' can often be intended as a slur. Maybe some people do self-identify as such, but that's a form of reclamation, and that doesn't make it OK to fling at someone else as an epithet. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sure it was meant as a slur, but I'm not going to block over it. Sarah is an admin, we are pretty much expected to deal with minor incivility against ourselves, even taking a rare personal attack. I didn't get this upset when someone told me to "Go fuck yourself" the other day. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but this is below the threshold I would expect an admin to be taking to ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo is fighting hard here, and being tough on opponents, and a bit unfair sometimes in my opinion. And I'm on the receiving end of some of it, and I have frowned once or twice. I used the word "combative" to describe the editor's conduct. But personally, I don't think that the editor's conduct has yet been so offensive that any administrative action is called for. Let's move on. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is ok to be told fuck off once, by an editor who is clearly overreacting. The problem with HiLo is that he is doing it all the time, just below the threshold behind which you expect him to be blocked. He is taken to ANI on a regular basis, but since he is below the threshold, the majority would always say that there is nothing serious. In my case, about three month ago, he was incivil, I have taken him to ANI, the the majority told me that it is my problem and not Hilo's, that I have a very poor command of English and this is why I do not understand what is going on, and other similarly pleasant things. And HiLo mentioned on a couple of occasions that he is proud being incivil with me (now he calls this generically "rough administrators"). Well, after a week he was called names by someone and immediately run to report this to ANI - he just has very different standards for his own behaviour and for what he expects from the others. Having said that, I believe unless he screws up badly the problem is not solvable at ANI. I am waiting for RFC/U, not having time to do it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to avoid posting in this pointless thread, but Ymblanter is displaying the worst kind of behaviour here. He hates me because I embarrassed him back in the early days of the Crimea dramas. He accused me of POV pushing on that topic, and was roundly condemned and shown to be lying, be me and a number of other editors. He is a POV pusher who desperately wants me out of his way. He is throwing mud here safe in the knowledge that he will almost certainly get away with it. Other Administrators never show the courage to do something effective about badly behaved Admins. All his comments here are not about the thread in question, but are just attacks on me, with an obvious goal. HE is the only one to use the expression "fuck off" in this thread or the one under discussion. I certainly didn't, yet he seems to be trying to imply that I did. I would dearly love to see a boomerang here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was never shown to be lying. You are deliberately lying now. I am criticizing you because of your poor behavior, and you attack me because of your phantasies. I am not a POV pusher, I have no POV to push.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you remember accusing me of bringing Putin into the discussion, and then having it shown by me and others that it was YOU who mentioned him first, in very negative tones? That's lying, twice now, and POV pushing, and you were caught out by me and others. You are a POV pushing, lying Admin, and want me out of your way. I was going to let all that pass, because Admins are such a protected species here, but your appalling attacks on me here have made me change my mind. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, by distorting and misrepresenting the facts and calling names you just perfectly illustrate the topic of this thread. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said in a previous thread about this user, my concern is that there is a particular group of editors with whom he appears to be unable to assume good faith and who, in his opinion, shouldn't be part of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how this diff could be any more explicit on this point - "Then such people are conservatives who we don't want at Misplaced Pages." GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already expressed my concerns about HiLo's conduct at the last ANI, so I won't rehash it here. My point is that no singular instance is ripe for a block. I would tell HiLo (again) that he needs to tone it back, as the pattern is becoming more and more in focus, and a pattern is actionable, if for no other reason that it is disruptive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've stayed out of the older discussions (at least from my recollection) but I looked at HiLo48's comments over there and I'm seeing some serious WP:SOAPBOX behavior. Enough that I find it alarming. Nobody should ever say that "liberals" or "conservatives" are not wanted on Misplaced Pages. That sort of attitude is completely antithetical to the fundamental way that Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. I'm concerned that HiLo48's point of view is too strong to be a constructive participant at this project. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Your misrepresentation of my comments caertainly makes you a non-constructive participant at this project. I have never said that "conservatives" are not wanted on Misplaced Pages. Misrepresentation is a destructive form of debate. I wasn't going to post here. Ymblanter's lies about me forced my hand. I aim to not post here again. But I will watch to see if any Admin has the courage to tackle unacceptable behaviour from other Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
        • How dare someone misrepresent you like that. It must have been someone else editing for you who said "such people are conservatives who we don't want at Misplaced Pages. Perhaps like several of the above posters, who are clearly seeking censorship, and pretending it's something else. Please go to Conservapedia" . Calidum 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
          • The words are different, and have a different and more complex meaning than you seem to have read into them. I must try harder to simplify my language. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see how it would be possible to read any meaning other than the one stated above into the comment you made. G S Palmer (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It could be read as 'the type of conservative we dont want here' given the context. Which going by Hilo's past edits is entirely possible. However its far from the best way to phrase the sentence. However since the original issue seems to have been dealt with, I suggest people back away from each other. If you have an issue with Hilo's conduct, RFC/U is probably a better place as the examples that spawned this thread hardly rise to personal attacks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
                • Based on what our policy says, it does rise to the level of a personal attack. "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." Political epithets directed against a group of contributors is a pretty valid description of what HiLo48 said in the prior discussion. If attacking people for being "conservative" should be dismissed as a personal attack, then we need to change our policy as written. I'm not actually advocating administrative action at this point (as an admin I would probably just implement it) but I do think it should be remarked on. I'm also concerned that HiLo48 is simply pretending to not have said what they said, per above, claiming that direct quotes are "misrepresentations". If we are misinterpreting what HiLo48 meant, then HiLo48 should clarify. But based on what can be read on HiLo48's user page I don't think we are misinterpreting. -- Atama頭 23:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • I am what Americans would call a liberal. I don't use that description for myself because the more conservative of Australia's two major political parties is the Liberal Party. (Go figure.) However, I make a massive effort to keep my biases out of my editing. While editing here during both the most recent Australian federal election and the most recent US presidential election I was accused by supporters of both sides of pushing the POV of the other, because I removed and opposed the POV edits of everybody. I take great pride in that. My problem with issues like the thread that led to this nonsense is never simply with religious people, or conservative people, or extreme left wing radicals. It's with editors with any ideology who cannot keep that ideology out of their editing. Biased editors aren't a problem. We are all biased. It's those who don't even recognise their own biases, and those who want to impose their biases here, that are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User 71.23.178.214 back to behavior that resulted in block

• 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion on Feb'14 block
• Discussions besides his own talk page UT:Arthur Rubin and UT:Ronz
• Michael Grimm (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He's back to his old behavior and then some. He's edit-warring over additions he wants at Michael Grimm, but is unable to give rationale specific about the value of the material and will not take his case to WP:ELN , but instead sticks to a WP:BATTLE mentality on the article talk page by attacking the other editors and completely forgetting the reasons for his previous block.

At United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014 he's making WP:POINT-violating edits out of frustration.

When this was brought up at Arthur Rubin's talk page, he responded with an borderline WP:OUTING violation . --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I will respond later with the five-months worth of diffs from these people (and a few others) showing their pattern of behavior to me and others in pursuit of their personal agenda to subvert Misplaced Pages articles dealing with US politics. I am not the one who has been edit-warring, quite the reverse. As you are no doubt aware, Arthur Rubin is blocked, for cause, from editing Tea Party Movement articles. He and Binksternet seem to have been set off by this and then moved on to three other political templates. At this point in time I will respond only to the charge of WP:OUT. Arthur Rubin's user page shows he has included himself in the category of Wikipedians who edit DMOZ. His LinkedIn page also includes this information. He is identified as a Moderator in a DMOZ Google+ group. He has made no effort to hide this, uses his real name on all these websites, and uses the same or similar photos on all these websites. He now claims, on my Talk page, that I "outed" him when the truth us he has been "outing" himself for years. It's been broadly disseminated in the public domain, for years, by his own purposeful actions. He is not a naive child, he is an Admin at Misplaced Pages. Presumably he understands this, yet he plays the victim card. He also makes some rather garbled (at least to me) references to spamming, canvassing and "multiple forums". When I present my collection of diffs, you will see this sort of thing fits into their pattern of ongoing behavior. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an OUT vio, his own user page stated he was a member of that organization. KonveyorBelt 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor with serious competence problems

I ran into this editor after they created Ain Shams University Faculty of Law as a copyright violation. They've now created it 3 times. The first 2 were copy and paste of part of which is more or less gibberish. The 3rd attempt changed a few words but was still copyvio and gibberish (maybe that's a bit unkind but I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps the source is a poor translation of something. I also put a PROD tag on Angie Abdallah . I'm at a loss as to what to do about Sharak (film). This edit turned a redirect to Miss Egypt back into an article about someone who won Miss Egypt and says "Donia Hamed' , born in Egypt , She got the title of Miss Egypt in 2010, working in the field of the stock market, it is also fluent in many languages​​, have announced that they do not think in the direction of the representation." On the plus side they've discovered how to use infoboxes. Anyone think this editor would benefit from mentoring? They've ignored the copyright warnings, I don't know if they can even understand them. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a google translation of the Arabic article on Ms Hamed . Paul B (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• After reading their user page , I am not so sure mentoring would work. They haven't been communicating, and mentoring only works when the editor wants to be mentored, and they have a sufficient grasp of the English language. They probably should limit themselves to small editing, or no editing on the English Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful if someone conversant in Arabic tried contacting Egy writer and conveying our concerns with his/her contributions. Otherwise, I agree that mentoring is unlikely to be helpful. I recall a similar situation dealing with User:MRDU08; attempts to contact the user in Spanish were made, but the disruption continued. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I never remembered to add his name, Egy writer (talk · contribs). He can write in English but see Talk:Ain Shams University Faculty of Law (which I have turned into a redirect). He also created Category:Schools of law in Egypt and added the law school to it manually. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tommy Pinball

Replaces, with no explanation whatsoever, and a reference that can't be checked, the words 'bin Laden' with the word 'Sammy' in our article on Osama bin Laden. Is reverted (not by me), so adds it again. . I revert, and warn for vandalism. :Tommy Pinball responds by posting the warning back on my page - and then tries to justify the edit on Talk:Osama bin Laden. His response to me stating that "There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic in dumping a random and entirely unexplained reference bin Laden as 'Sammy' into the article in the manner you did - if it wasn't vandalism, it was a darned good impression of it" is to post "You are a prick. This illustrates the difference between an encyclopedic and an unencyclopedic fact." . Not the actions of a contributor fit to edit such a significant article, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I just gave the user a strong warning before I even saw this report. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

The funny thing is that the reference seems to be real. Since I can't check the article myself, I can't say if it supports the claim that bin Laden could be called "Sammy", but the consensus about referring to the subjects of articles seems to be that we use the surname rather than given names or nicknames. Anyway, while I wouldn't strictly call this vandalism, I would call his conduct in light of the revert incivility. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: and the effect of my warning was interesting. They immediately posted the warning back to me, in the very same manner as I had warned them about doing on Andy's page. Blocked for 48 hours. I think this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Good block. Such editors' disruption is rarely prevented by simple warnings. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And there's an unblock request already. On fairly non-substantive grounds (in essence requesting the block be amended because what he was engaged in wasn't vandalism in the strict sense). Recommend declining. Strictly speaking, he was blocked for disruption, and the length Bish chose is well within reason. In a more legalese sense, I would call this harmless error at worst. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on their page, offering to change "vandalism" for "disruptive editing" in the block log, even though the "Sammy" business looked awfully like "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". (Well, I can't actually change the log, but I can put in an update.) What can I say, I'm soft. I agree 48 hours wasn't much. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

I get the feeling that if you will wait 49 hours, you will be able to kill two birds with one stone in regard to the block log. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute NPOV and consistent abuse of Germany Related Pages

The user has a pattern of disruptively editing themes related to Germans, German Culture, and Slavic influence in European Culture and History. This may mean minor edits such as including that Peter Thiel is 'a german american' in the lead of that article while deleting evidence of Angela Merkel's polish heritage in her article. The user has edited over ten pages in this pattern in the last month alone. The pattern is to delete references to other cultures and to highlight the evidence of German culture. The user is doing so over a seemingly broad variety of articles, but when specific edits are looked at the pattern emerges. Please see his contributions in the last month alone. This is a long term pattern of disruption which lead to his being blocked in Germany wikipedia, for 'personal attacks'- he vociferously defended a famed holocaust denier as a 'historian' which lead to his permanent blocking.

His pattern is subtle and aggressive, discouraging changes to his edits by citing WP:BOLD and attempting to sound authoritative.

However the pattern of NPOV edits on German topics is apparent when looking at his contributions.

These are only recent cases this list is extremely non-exhaustive, only dealing with topics he edited in the past month (other then the one leading to the banning in Germany, in some cases the whole page is brought up, in others specific diffs - Please look at all of his contributions to see the pattern

- banned in German Misplaced Pages for supporting a Holocaust denier as a historian, and for personal attacks -

- attempting to eliminate talk of Merkel's Polish roots. - trying to Germanize Mozart's roots - though he is widely thought of as Austrian. and emphasizing German nature of production of Grand Budapest Hotel, while deleting other references. and - overly emphasizing the German business owenrship of a DB Schenker and - fighting over the extent to which Merkel's Grandfather was Polish/German and - pushing the perspective that Einstein was German though he was Jewish and fled German aggression. and arguing that being German born deserves to be in the lead of the story about an american. - trying to exclude Turkic languages from European Languages trying to exclude certain ethnicities from European Cuisines - emphasizing that Dutch people are heavily influenced by Germans.

He is also in an ongoing conflict with - Volunteer Marek see, and other discussions disputes etc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Well, yes. This has been a pattern for IIIraute ever since he arrived on Misplaced Pages. A severe case of WP:OWN on any thing related to Germany or Germans, a ... very narrow, definition of European-ness (see diffs above), complete inability to engage people with different opinions in a constructive manner, a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as on Angela Merkel article, among others), lots of reverting and edit warring per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, continuous attempts to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages policies by quoting them when they don't apply (latest example again, at Angela Merkel) or by making them up and of course the ever present cries of WP:CONSENSUS!, by which s/he seems to me "I do what I want". Dealing with this user is such a pain that even myself, who can put up with a lot of nonsense and is used to dealing with trouble makers of all kinds, have really tried to avoid him, except in cases where he's really over the top.

Other users (for example @Kutsuit:) seem to have had a similar experience.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add changing the ethnicity on Kirsten Dunst - similar to with Peter Thiel. Also note the emphasis here on Sandra Bullocks distant German Relations while trying to minimize Angela Merkel's direct relationship to an ethnically polish grandfather (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Another popular topic in his line of editing (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Arguing that Nazi Germany should be called the Third Reich... (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Of all those claims I have only knowledge of the dispute about Merkel and I must say that Mostlyoksorta grossly misrepresents the issue. Illraute didn't bother about her grandfather being described as part-Polish until an account specifically created for this and Volunteer Marek tried to push for undue coverage, something opposed by everyone else Most recently Volunteer Marek has started another revert-war for more influence for her grandfather in the article, this time with an image.--walkee 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of the diffs being offered here are months old and, like those involving Kirsten Dunst or the Nazi Germany/Third Reich, are a content dispute rather than a conduct problem. I see disagreement here, not disruption. Liz 20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz - one of my concerns is that the disagreement is NPOV when a user is consitently seeking out to promote the idea that certain famous individuals are German, certain countries are 'not european', basically promoting a German nationalist idea. That is NPOV. No matter if some of the content disputes have merit. Also, I tried to pick more recent diffs but the entire pattern of the users 'work' dating back to account creating follows this pattern. That is why I call would call it persistent abuse or persistent NPOV (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Hitler, Mengele and IP

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

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

IP editor 189.249.64.83 seems to be obsesses with adding Hitler and Mengele to Jewish articles. Please see if you want to warn or straightforward block him. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a blatant vandal warning on the ip's talk page. If there's further vandalism from this ip, leave a note at WP:AIV. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked by Bishonen. Reprehensible editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If everybody'd stop edit conflicting me, I'd really appreciate it. Warn? You're kidding. No warnings for stuff like that. Blocked for a week, and thanks for the alert. BTW, could somebody proficient in these matters check if it's an open proxy, please? Bishonen | talk 00:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

It doesn't appear to be an open proxy. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Kevin. Bishonen | talk 06:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Persistent slander and personal attacks

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

Requesting comment admin action re the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) and Atlantictire (talk · contribs) in this AfD talkpage and this AN thread, where practically every single of their hate-filled, vitriolic posts includes unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text. Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay, and upon that being demonstrated, I immediately reversed my position completely amid repeated apologies. My own past conduct on the talk page was not exemplary, and will no doubt be cited here, but even after my sincere apologies and withdrawal the abuse continues unabated. I also do not think any gruff response I ever wrote can be compared to this sort of continuous torrent of hate speech.

I am reluctant to invite the literal crowd from the content dispute to inevitably arrive here opposing anything I say, but there's only so much abuse of this serious nature that anyone can take. In this latest thread, in addition to Markbernstein's standard fare, there's Atlantictire calling me a fanatic racist and suggesting I am mentally ill.

Atlantictire is a user blocked for previous personal attacks of this nature against me, during which time he created sock puppets to evade his block, and continued posting attacks on his talkpage, showing no remorse whatsoever up to this very point, maintaining that its my fault for frustrating him. Prior to his block he created a sock, Mazelov (talk · contribs), to "congratulate" me, and tell me to (quote) "get those Jew bastards!". Presumably as some kind of attempt at entrapment. He (a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer ) was blocked for repeatedly calling me a sock puppet, and you will find him doing the exact same thing in the linked discussions.

I was wrong. And I did, as it turned out, defend a compilation of sources that, though indisputably reliable as such, were taken from their use by a racist essay. It was a mistake I made, and many others who defended the article. MarkBernstein deliberately takes advantage of this to omit everyone's lack of knowledge as to the origin of the references, in order to repeatedly slander me (as well as implicitly everyone else who was ever opposed to deletion) as "defenders" of antisemitism and racism both. Atlantictire just likes to insult others on the project, and sees that as heroic. -- Director (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well. I can see there's some quite serious history here. Confining my analysis simply to the linked discussions, I believe the comments of MarkBernstein and Atlantictire are inappropriate and possibly defamatory. Having been part of clusterfuck AfDs along the lines of the Jews and Communism one that spawned this discussion, I know that things can really spin out of proportion fast. In light of that, I do not think blocking of any party is appropriate, because although blocks could issue, the important matter is resolving the AfD. Blocking will not repair the harm to the community caused by the comments, and though it will prevent further such comments from being made, I believe a stern final warning to all parties be made to stop indulging in personalities even if the accusation is defensible, non-defamatory criticism, or whatever, so the AfD can conclude with as little further disruption as possible. In the words of many a scolding grandmother: it takes two to tango. A trainwreck of this magnitude cannot be the result of one single party's misbehavior. If the participants cannot allow the AfD to conclude without further disruption, then blocks should be considered to protect its outcome. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I omitted to mention the AfD itself is not in question at this point. I myself changed my position to Delete, and the article has been blanked. The linked discussions have very little to do with the (inevitable) deletion of the article, esp. the AN thread, and the behavior at issue seems poised to continue on. -- Director (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director says he is facing "unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text". I really struggle to understand how anyone could have read that article, or even the title of it, and not have seen instantly that it was a pure piece of anti-Semitic propaganda. It was pointed out over and over and over on the talk page that there is no connection between Jews and Communism, what the article was talking about was people who might be described as of Jewish heritage in Marxist-Leninist movements in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 20th century, that is not the same as "Jews and Communism" globally and at all times and there was never any source given for making any connection between "Jews and Communism". Director says "Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay", well he ought to have known because I said over and over on the talk page that the stuff about Jews killing the Tsar was only found on extremist anti-Semitic websites, here I call it the "grossest anti-Semitic filth", and he and Producer, as he then was, threatened to "report" me or get me "sanctioned". A little research on my part revealed, to no surprise on my part, that that quote as well as many others in the article indeed came from an extremist anti-Semitic website. I did know what I was talking about, they would not listen. It is hard for me to get my head round the fact that Director sincerely believes that he is not anti-Semitic, however I do think that is the case. Some people are very very angry about all this right now, they are going to vent about it, it would be very wrong to "sanction" people for expressing their anger at the moment. I am very angry myself, but not really at Director, more at admins who saw this article and the discussion about it on two long threads on this board and just ignored blatant anti-Semitic propaganda being promulgated on this site. My advice to Director is to step back for a few days, take a wiki break, if people are still calling you names in a week or two, then you can try to stop it, but now is not a good time.Smeat75 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I request forbearance while the AfD, which is important to the future and, perhaps, the survival of Misplaced Pages, proceeds. Beyond that, I stand on my record here: I have keynoted and chaired wikiSym, I have written wikis and nurtured them, and i have done my best, and more, for this project. I deserved better of you. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Smeat75 and throughout the whole time I read the discussions I felt and thought exactly as he described, word by word. I don't think anyone should be sanctioned by either being angry or thinking that Director is anti-semitic after all the heavy process everyone had to go through for something so simple and obvious to happen, which is the deletion of a blatant anti-semitic article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Charming missives from Director: MarkBernstein (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Skipping the content issues, I think Smeat is absolutely right that the solution, given the acrimonious nature of the entire situation surrounding the AfD, is taking a few days to collect and reflect. Doing so is going to be infinitely better than diving headlong into trying to correct any place you've been wronged. Just as there is no deadline with respect to the encyclopedia, nobody's likely to successfully argue that because you waited until after the AfD to complain about incivil comments made towards you, that you slept on your rights and forfeited the right to make a complaint. And by the same token, I believe that the overall issue between these parties is just not ripe for administrator intervention. Once the dust settles on the AfD, then we should look into whether sanctions are merited for behavior in its midst. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the place for requesting comment on editors but for requesting action. But the place for discussion is the open AN thread. If you want to complain about comments made there, make the complaint there. Since the cause of the dispute is an article which will probably be deleted, it may be that the problem will disappear once that is done. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I supposed to now work to convince everyone I'm not a mentally deranged fanatical racist who's also an antisemite, based on someone saying so, in order that my being called such would be viewed as inappropriate?

I defended scholarly sources that were and are, of themselves, entirely reliable. Myself and a dozen others were fooled by that fact. But no, in order for me not be a free target for personal attacks, I should have been psychic, concluding that they must have been taken from the references of an antisemitic essay. Frankly I don't care what something looks like, I go by what I see in terms of evidence.

I said "comment", because I don't demand sanctions be necessarily taken. As long as the nonsense stops. -- Director (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin action

Requesting admin action against Atlantictire (talk · contribs) regarding his comments in this thread, and a review of of the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) as elaborated above, also with a mind to the possibility of sanctions for repeated slander.

"Comment" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that I am requesting an admin review of the actions of the two users, and the imposition of sanctions if that is felt necessary. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the AfD has closed, and the topic ban discussions have been closed as well. As such my concerns above regarding ripeness are themselves now moot. While I think Director would do well to avoid claiming there was slander (i.e., defamation) in the comments, so as to avoid concerns that he is making legal threats, I also believe that implying another editor is mentally ill is bad enough from a WP:NPA standpoint as to merit some sanction. That sanction, of course, should not be punitive, but preventative. I fear, however, that this specific complaint is not separable from the litany of complaints that have already been produced by the AfD participants. That is, it would likely be inappropriate to impose sanctions in a piecemeal fashion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate to go about this piecemeal, or to propose punitive sanctions, but that's exactly what you've got over at AN. I am singled out in spite of both apologizing and wowing to stay away from the topic, and in spite of the whole mess being effectively over with the deletion of the article. What else am I to do? Prevention is all I'm after with this thread. I don't want an apology even, all I want is assurances that I won't have to read any more essays of manipulative character assassination. If the users aren't able to bring themselves to stop, then imo there obviously isn't much more than sanctions in terms of prevention. I'm not out for "revenge", but this is really getting out of hand there. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Too angry. Give me 24 hours and I might be able to give you my account of what happened here. I only ask that you do a admin complaint board search for "Director" and "Direktor" to get a sense of who you're dealing with.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I think your best course of action, if you want to continue to be a productive editor and collaborate with others, is to put as much distance between yourself and this article as possible. That means dropping these complaints and moving on. I'm not saying that harsh words weren't spoken, it's just that you are not totally blameless, you fought hard for that article and against editors who stated their objections to it. Bringing up complaints against other editors means rehashing your participation in this article which just prolongs this episode. The discussion at WP:AN has been closed, you didn't receive a topic ban so chalk this up as a learning experience and let this go. Hopefully, in the future, you will not be dismissive of other editors' concerns and there will not be a repeat of this experience for you. Liz 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to indef block Atlantictire outright. Uploading racist material, attacking others with satire and sarcasm, casting aspersions. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As for MarkBernstein, he's been heated but no more than Director himself. I don't think sanctions are necessary.--v/r - TP 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  His behavior has been particularly atrocious, but perhaps with the article gone, this will all subside and everyone can calm down. If he follows the users he had beefs with into other topics and venues in the days to come, then throw the book at em. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough.--v/r - TP 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  I've done a bit of thinking on this. I reiterate that my exposure to this incident has been limited to the very specific statements made at the AfD talk page that at least insinuate Director is mentally ill or harbors antisemitic beliefs. Nonetheless, I cannot for the life of me, under any set of facts short of Director himself openly stating that he is mentally ill and harbors antisemitic beliefs (and possibly even then), believe those statements are justifiable under WP:NPA. Whether sanctions are necessary and what those sanctions should be is likely beyond the scope of this discussion. Nonetheless, for the time being the offending parts of the AfD talk page should be redacted. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  On second thought...I didn't notice stuff like the grave-dancing going on at the AfD talk page, as that is (usually) a rarely-used part of the deletion process. I think people will have a hard time keeping their Evidence sections under limit at a potential Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I feel like making a tactical apology here? No. I do not. You’re going to need to block me or else Director, who suffered no consequences other than losing the Jews and Communism article he relentlessly defended for months, will forever complain about how I called him a racist and suffered no consequences.

Am I bitter and feeling hostile to Misplaced Pages right now? Oh yes. Are there editors, right now, more focused on the fact that I’m “being a rant” and "holding a grudge" than that it’s completely outrageous and horrifying that this article survived an AfD and a deletion review and, that probably the only reason Jews and Communism was able to be expunged from Misplaced Pages was because someone created a screenshot of the white supremacist site from which it came.

No one is innocent here, especially not editors like Tarc who defended the article with statements like this about people playing the “victim card,” and especially not anyone who thinks sparing Director a topic ban is a “good faith” decision after his role in all of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can make hay out of a long-redacted-upon-request comment, then knock yourself out, sport. I'm fairly confident that most who look into what has transpired over the last week/month will see you as one of the most egregious agent provocateurs of this affair. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down here, Tarc . There's no reason to call Atlantictire an Agent provocateur; in fact, nothing could be less plausible. An agent provocateur craftily entices someone into a rash act. Director hardly needs to be enticed, and Atlantictire over-the-top derogation could scarcely be less suited to such a task. Atlantictire's anger is palpable -- he highlights it himself -- but you have no particular cause to be angry or to fling accusations about. (And isn't it strange how so many defenders of Jews and Communism are so worried about agents and conspiracies? Why would that spring to mind? Oh wait...)

There is a reason to Atlantictire's angry rhyme. As I see it, Atlantictire is trying to force Misplaced Pages's admins onto the horn of a dilemma. Atlantictire is wrong on policy; he is breaking the rules. Director is simply in the wrong, defending a page about the international Jewish conspiracy behind Communism because he didn't know -- how could anyone have known? -- it was anti-semitic. The inclination of the admin closing the AfD was, I believe, to give both Director and Atlantictire a lot of WP:ROPE, to watch and wait. Atlantictire, I think, wants to force a settlement now. "Censure Atlantictire for bad manners," he says, "or ban Director for bad acts."

Unlike the proposals to delete the page, which should have been an easy call, this one is not easy. Misplaced Pages’s inclination to narrow legalism would be to act against Atlantictire, who is clearly violating and clearly says he intends to violate rules -- fairly minor and arcane rules, to be sure, but rules -- while leaving Director for another day. In this forum that might be a tempting resolution. But I expect Atlantictire is not thinking of this forum; if he alone is censured, a broader audience will see that Misplaced Pages acted against Atlantictire for being mean to someone who defended an anti-semitic page, but took no action against that defender. The optics of that are terrible for the project. Of course, punishing Atlantictire by depriving him of editing privileges might be satisfying -- especially to those who value their editing privileges highly -- but I suspect Atlantictire might be placing a lower value on them than would the average admin. (I have no knowledge of these matters beyond reading what the editors have written, and I may be misinterpreting Atlantictire's intent.)

I write this because I think it is an interesting problem Atlantictire has posed, and it would be sad if the project blundered here by not understanding the question it was being asked. I really have no immediate idea how the project should respond. As should be clear, none of this has anything at all to do with Director's risible claim above that I have slandered him. It seems to me that someone might have mention WP:NLT, but I gather no one takes this specific accusation very seriously. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Really pissed off IP

During new page patrol, I nominated Ronnie Lee Smith for deletion. This has REALLY pissed off Fascistdestroyer (talk · contribs), and coincidentally after that user was blocked for vandalism, an IP is now stalking me with various personal attacks and vandalizing various pages.

If someone could take care of this that'd be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior to seeing this thread, I had already blocked the IP for block evasion, as well as semi-protecting the article and AfD threads which are two of their targets of vandalism and personal attacks when disrupting the project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you in a particularly lenient and kindly mood today, Barek? I've extended the Fascistdestroyer block to 72 hours for block evasion. Aren't those long weird IPs always static and with extremely low risk of collateral damage, or have I got that wrong? Because I'd like to extend the IP block also, so as not to tempt them to further evasion. Also, if the IP block is shorter, they might even think they're OK to use it during Fascistdestroyer's block, you never know. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

They're never completely static, but they do tend to be assigned to the same person (well, connection) longer than most IPv4 addresses are. In this case, I don't think there would be any risk of collateral damage in extending the IP block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that if I didn't know Misplaced Pages policies from Adam, created an article about somebody I thought was important, only to see it tag bombed in the way I currently see the article here (is this a record for "most tags on an article"), then I'd be a little annoyed myself. There's no real reason anyone couldn't have done a little homework and cleaned the article up first, rather than leaving it with 8 gazillion Facebook and Youtube references (give or take a few) on it, and especially leaving the potentially BLP violating content about his arrest in. I'm with Andy in that I can't easily decide which way to vote on the AfD - it depends what good sources are out there, if any. Ritchie333 10:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that we don't have a blanket ban on SPS and non-RS either. We require RS to establish notability. We require RS to support challenged statements within an article. Beyond this though, we're free to use non-RS as supplements.

All too often (and usually involving the same handful of editors) an article like this gets tagged for OMG SPS!!, then chunks of content are removed as "tainted" by such SPS (policy doesn't recognise this tainting) and then the whole article deleted for "too many non-RS sources". Neither of these actions have policy behind them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. What tends to happen is that newcomers put in Facebook and Youtube sources because they're easy to find and dime a dozen, but the real work of writing (or even rewriting) the article where better local or national news sources are actually out there tends to take a back seat to "zomg CSD A7 lol" giddiness, presumably because the former takes far more effort and skill than the latter. Since a typical WP regular would probably not miss the article, these tend to fall by the wayside. Ritchie333 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is restricted editor TJ Spyke violating his restrictions?

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

User:TJ Spyke and I are in need of some clarification regarding his editing restrictions. For failure to abide by WP:NOTBROKEN despite literally dozens of warnings and dozens of blocks, it was finally decided last May that he needed to be blocked indefinitely. For the curious, a good summary of his WP:NOTBROKEN violations is documented here. He also has an equally lengthy rap sheet and a prior indef block for pro-wrestling-related WP:EDITWAR violations. His appallingly-long block log is here.

Anyway, after several months he was unbanned on April 1 after agreeing to abide by the conditions set forth at WP:RESTRICT. Specifically: "TJ Spyke is banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year, will observe a 1 revert rule for six months, and can be placed under a topic ban by any administrator for one year."

Since being unblocked he's spent the majority of his time making changes to a vanity page on professional wrestling stats that he's maintained for years in userspace, but he also does make occasional edits in mainspace and some of them (e.g. this and this) seem to me to violate his editing restrictions. These two edits prompted me to give him yet another warning (seen here), and I told him that if I saw any further violations I'd seek guidance here.

Sadly my warning seems to have mainly impacted his rate of editing and not his avoidance of the issues that landed him his restrictions in the first place. So a few weeks later, after making this edit, he wrote to me to ask whether he was again in violation of his restrictions. I told him that it looked like a violation to me and I advised him to seek clarification from User:Yunshui, the unblocking admin. TJ Spyke decided not to seek any further advice and resumed his slow-paced userspace-centric editing. This morning I noticed this edit and I have to say it strikes me as a clear example of "changing the target of any wikilink for a year" - a violation of the restrictions.

Can TJ Spyke and I get some clarification on whether these are indeed violations? It would be helpful to know if TJ Spyke is continuing to openly flout community rules or if he's acting within the bounds of his restrictions. Thanks for any light that can be shed on this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether the edits themselves are justified or not, all of these are very clear violations of the editing restrictions he agreed to (the Halloween Havoc diff in particular is exactly the sort of edit he was previously blocked for. I am therefore reinstating an idefinite block on his account. Yunshui _水 10:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Indopug - behavior concerns

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

By judging his talk page history this user seem to possess a usual habit of blanking talk page messages. And even marks a regular user as a troll as seen here. This user makes changes with his personal inclinations and doesn't co-operate with other users even replies with a borderline threatening tone which is pretty much apparent here. Shallowmead077 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you want done here? Doc talk 11:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A spanking! A spanking! On a more serious note, I think I'll assume Indopug just likes to keep his talk page clear in the same way I remember to delete emails I don't need any more. This edit suggests he is perfectly au fait with policies. I wouldn't worry about it, unless he's disrupting articles, which I can't see he is. Ritchie333 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Mongo, that appears to be due a spat noted here, over these reverts. User who template regulars for vandalism when it clearly isn't vandalism can probably expect something testy in return. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All this looks like a diversion from the SPI just filed by Indopug regarding the complaintant.--MONGO 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullying editors on the talk page

Although I have resigned myself to not participating in Misplaced Pages, I can't help but feel that editor conduct leading up to this point has been inappropriate. If a more senior editor could take the time to review the recent activity on the '9/11 conspiracy theories' talk page, I would consider it in the best interest of the site.

The objections I expressed were limited to the context and content of one sentence. I also suggested that a tag be added. Several editors immediately began quoting policies in an effort to dismiss my concerns. No one endeavored to address my criticisms or engage in a dialogue. Instead, my edits to the talk page were deleted. Finally, I was threatened with banishment, despite the fact that I have not registered or edited any articles.

After the threat of banishment I attempted to respond to the threatening editor on his talk page. He quickly deleted my response without providing his own. His characterization of my edits to the talk page seemed as if he had not actually read them. I found it discouraging that he should delete edits to a talk page without actually examining them.

Of course the topic of 9/11 is controversial and I recognize this. It is for this reason that I have limited my criticisms to the use and context of that specific passage, and not the larger issue. I do not expect that everyone should be able to agree on any given issue. However, I did harbor the thought that (in so much as it is humanly possible) the use of logic in constructing a sentence can be examined from an objective standpoint.

Again, I have no intentions of editing Misplaced Pages articles, nor will I consider registering. There is no danger of me offering (further) criticisms on that talk page. That issue is closed for me. However, I do hope that Misplaced Pages and my own use of it can improve from this point forward. Thank you for your consideration and any guidance you may offer.

Please see the edit histories for the following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#.3F.27 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:VQuakr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.244 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

NON-ADMIN: I'm sorry you feel you were mistreated. At face value it looks like you got embroiled in a content dispute in which consensus was against your suggestions. There are dispute resolution options that might have been worth pursuing (and maybe still are depending on how invested you are).

I see your contributions being collapsed, not deleted. I also don't see any threats of banishments. Can you provide diffs showing where you were threatened with banishment or your comments were deleted? I'm inclined to suspect you might have been threatened with a WP:BLOCK, but that's not the same as a WP:BAN...though I recognize that the terms sound somewhat interchangeable on the face of it.

Anyway, I hope this will be worked out to your satisfaction, but I hope you'll bear in mind that content changes generally are done by WP:CONSENSUS and while we may sympathize with your difficulties, we may also need persuasive arguments to support the underlying content issues. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

also non admin - I agree with the complainant. it is one thing to strongly disagree with other editor, it is quite another to delete their content from the talk page. WP regulations require that editors be 'welcoming' and 'respectful'. This does not appear to have been the cae, rather bullying appears to have occurred. When such bullying occurs clear messages need to be sent, though not necessarily banishment at first incident. Proving diffs becomes impossible with a highly aggressive individual due to the levels of reversion. Leopardtail (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the IP I was using which shows the threat of ban/block: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:36.252.112.118 Here is where my comments were deleted from the talk page the first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=608652873&oldid=608649704 The second time: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=608781328&oldid=608777689

Concerning the need for a consensus, it seems perfectly acceptable. It was the dismissive quotations without engagement, threats of blocks, and deletions which brought me here. I do not expect everyone to be able to agree on any given issue. However, my expectation was that the disagreement could be expressed through dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.244 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the diffs. I think I'm going to have to leave it to the admins to look at, but the additional information should be helpful in any case. I'm glad you understand the consensus part of the situation in any case.

I will say regarding the block (not ban) warning that that's a standard template message and you'd be best off considering it an advisory to reconsider your behavior...and not necessarily a well-founded one...rather than any sort of threat. Anyone can use one of those templates at any time; the intention behind issuing them (in good faith instances at least) is to try to get editors to take more constructive approaches to situations before admins feel they're left with no option but to block to prevent disruption. In other words, as intimidating as the messages can be, they're really meant to help editors by (strongly) encouraging them to take a look at their behavior and offering more constructive options. Anyway, best of luck. I'll chime in again if I think I have anything useful to say, but as I said, probably best if the admins review matters at this point. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree consensus is impossible with some individuals and there will always be a content dispute involved in any bullying. This form of behaviour on WP is becoming all too common and one cannot simply brush it off as a content dispute. Leopardtail (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look through the edits. I don't think talk page comments should generally be removed unless they are archived or contain libellous content or personal abuse. If you don't like something - ignore it!

However, the bottom line is 9/11 is, as you might expect, a controversial topic, especially where conspiracy theories are involved. Therefore I would strongly recommend you (and, indeed, anyone) avoid editing it unless you are extremely well versed in Misplaced Pages policies, otherwise you'll simply run into trouble as you have here, as consensus of opinion is hard to sway unless you are very effective in communicating. It's best to just accept that's the way it is and find a different topic to edit. Incidentally, WP:DEADHORSE is an essay, not a policy or guideline, although the overall message of "when a debate has ended, don't keep it going" is sound. Ritchie333 16:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comics and Gaming Magazine

User:Bfrye26 is adding review snippets from the website Comics and Gaming Magazine to various articles, along with expanding the website's article. The user appears to be the owner of this website. The site does not appear to be reliable or notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (talk)

• I am not the owner of the site. I have been reading the magazine for a while now as It is sold at stores in Canada. I noticed the information listed was old and outdated so wanted to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfrye26 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not the place for this, but it is likely that the text added is a copyright violation or a COI by process of the "we" in this edit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

He's not the only one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mario_Golf:_World_Tour&curid=38518498&diff=608852129&oldid=608850161 Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted Bfrye26's edits on Comics and Gaming Magazine since they added tons of copyrighted material to the article (from the mag website), plus linkspam/refspam. Bfrye26 has also been given a copyvio-warning. Thomas.W 16:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• I was about to go to WP:VG/S about this on reliability grounds before looking at the spammish angle of it. Guess I wasn't the only one to notice these additions. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The user is still engaged in wide spread additions of this site to VG review templates. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• User:Cody Orme appears to have confirmed his identify as the Cody Orme writing for CGMagazine in this edit. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be ripe for a WP:REALNAME block; I don't see that as a particularly good confirmation of identity anyway. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Executive Editor of the website is listed as Brendan Frye, even if he does not own the site. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Another user has reverted Bfrye26's additions: . --Odie5533 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I cleaned most of them up. Atama has blocked Bfrye26. I've advised Cody Orme he should visit this discussion several times. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems the block of Brendan resulted in Cody getting hit with an autoblock. It's fun how these things work out sometimes. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• The main article needs a good anti-spam enema, phrases like "CGM is about more than just discussing new comics and games and their entertainment value, although we also do that."--the 'we' gives it away. Ultimately it may not be notable enough for an article at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Those sorts of tone issues are also red flags in my mind for potential copyvios. Not a guaranteed hit, but it's usually worth checking. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And no one finds it odd that both Bfrye26 and Cody Orme are using the same style to reply to other editors on their respective talk pages? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition of copyrighted material by Karenmanroe

Karenmanroe (talk) has added copyrighted material to Nathan Bryan (scientist) three times now diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. They have already received two warnings for the first two additions and ignored them, so I doubt further warnings will do any good. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011

This user seems to have a very long history of continuous low-quality editing, and he's still very active to this date. His talk page has a very long list of issues dating back all the way to 2011, but his behaviour doesn't look like it's improved much since. He's also active on other projects, and I recently reported him to the admins of Wikimedia Commons for repeated unnecessary and low-quality hue/saturation changes to Wikimedia Commons images, however that's hardly relevant here I suppose.

I did some minor reverts to some of the recent pages (mostly about colours) he's edited, but when I noticed how active he is and how the vast majority of his edits should probably be reverted, I decided this matter requires administrator's attention.

For examples of these low-quality edits you could probably just pick anything from his history, but here are a few:

1. Field of view in video games, where he added information pertaining to analogue filmmaking which as far as I know has practically no relevance to the topic of the article. Also has some original research.
2. Fraggle Rock, more original research.
3. Kermit's Swamp Years, some sort of unrelated original research opinion thing, since then this has been reverted.
4. Clitoromegaly, the file's been since deleted but as far as I can tell based on the edit history where someone reverted it, it was original research and not actually related to clitoromegaly at all. ("WP:Dummy edit: For one, that image is of a penis, not a clitoris. Hormones cannot make a clitoris look that much like a penis, that big, and with the addition of a scrotum.")

I could go on, but really you don't have to look very hard to find more examples of this. One thing I'm not too sure about is if the guy is just a low-quality editor or an outright vandal, but in either case I think he has to be dealt with.

Turdas (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF suggests this is a WP:CIR issue. The editor's last block was for a month. I think they just don't get it. I will point out, though, that this edit by you was incorrect. Crayola most certainly does make markers (including a laser lemon-colored marker), as well as a modeling clay in that color. They make many products including glue, colored pencils, chalk, paint, scissors, and so on. I'm just pointing this out, even though HappyLogolover2011 has a serious problem with original research (including inserting commentary and failing to use references) that doesn't mean they are always wrong. -- Atama頭 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Said user contacted me on my talk page about this report, and in my reply to him I also linked him to the WP:CIR page, along with the no original research page. Perhaps I was a little crude in not talking to him at all before posting here, but looking at his talk page I figured we're beyond the point of talking reason into him.

About that particular edit I made, I posted it with a poor comment but I believe it is an entirely reasonable edit. Those colour pages rely heavily on Crayola's crayon colours, and use Crayola's "crayon chronology" as their reference (that link has since lapsed, but Crayola's website still has the same information -- perhaps I should update the article in that regard). Thus I believe it's quite reasonable to say that markers aren't relevant to that page but crayons are, at least until a good citation related to markers (with eg. accurate hex triplets) is found and added to it. Anyway, this is somewhat beyond the point I guess. Turdas (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had multiple encounters with this user and, while it seems that he is editing in good faith (to me, at least), I have to agree with what Atama says: The dude just doesn't seem to get it, no matter how many times people him that a certain edit he's trying to make just isn't a good idea. TheStickMan 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

HappyLogolover's response at his/her user talk suggests a possible WP:NOTHERE issue. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/C_i_wood

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

From examining this history, it looks like a potentially compromised account.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Has been indeffed by DragonflySixtyseven. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User scientwatcher is abusviely defending his single POV

This user is treating the Chronic_fatigue_syndrome and Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment pages as his personal fiefdom. His easy access to articles give the distinct impression he is employed. His high level or activity seem inconsistent with both an Amateur editor with 'normal employment'. For these reason's I suspect he is a 'paid contributor' or other interested party and deliberately sabotaging the article.

His behaviour is so aggressive that other editors (me included) are being driven off the page - he is also stimulating the same behaviour by others (I suspect due to outright fury and frustration). I personally left this page for several weeks because I could not cope with his demeanour. There is a current example one page, however (due to ill health) I am unable to list all examples, they are too numerous and arduous to link.

Conduct vis-a-vis others

Today was the last straw, he posted the following material on the talk page:

It's your opinion that it's partisan. And if you look at Tekaphor's comments above, you'll see that the other reviews say pretty much the same thing. I would ask if you've been smoking crack, but I suspect you've just been spending too much time on patient forums. I think you need to get out more and read the actual science rather than listening to all the crap that is spouted on phoenixrising (I was having a look through it today, and the pseudoscientific claptrap on there would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad). It makes it very difficult for me to take anything you say seriously when you keep doing this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• He behaved rudely both on the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment page and the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome page (content now archived). He has also transferred this behaviour to my | own talk page (link to history) - search for 'poop study' or 'crap science'. When I demanded polite conduct on my page (and removed the rude comment) he transferred the rudeness to this one: Chronic_fatigue_syndrome

• When the talk history of the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" and "Chronic Fatigue Synddrome Treatyement" pages are checked he appears to have exhibited unwelcoming or rude conduct with almost every user who disagreed with him thus driving several users driving editors off the page.
• He has made a groundless complaint here of 'rudeness' against one other user when (in the view of several) he is guilty of that behaviour.
• He is abusing WP rules to enforce his view of the content, making vague references to them often when the rules do not appear to have been broken. A recent example present on the talk page being references to WP:OR referring to a conclusion any educated person would form (as permitted). As a new-ish user I found this behaviour overwhelming and had to spend most than 1 month reading the regulations in order to deal with him.
• Other users on this same page manage to be cordial and polite.
• He has use the terms 'Quack' and 'Quackery' to describe doctors who disagree with his (rather inflexible) POV. Relating to Dr Titelbaum in the in the CFS page, and Dr MyHill in the CFS treatment page.

His overall conduct makes dispute resolution or compromise on content seem impossible, there are complaints on his home page covering multiple articles.

Conduct with Content

• He has repeatedly and aggressively reverted the content of other users as many as twice in one day while stopping short of the three revert rule.
• He has been using reversion or complete removal of content he disagrees with as his default modus operandi.
• He has aggressively promoted a single point of view in these pages that is one of at least eight medical disciplines involved in the disease.
• He has removed secondary references supporting statements that do not match his point of view, removed statemetns in their entirety rather than attempt balance (e.g. before & after. Providing a diff is not possible since his constant reversion makes most versions of the page incomparable. Please simply check history and view the number of reversions.
• When others make solid arguments for content he ignores them, makes rude comments or silly references to WP rules and reverts content.
• This has resulted in a page where I could make at least twenty comments regarding NPOV (a small subset there now).
• He is abusing Med-Ref rules to violate neutrality and balance and openly arguing that is correct practice. I can explain why they are especially problematic with this disease on request, however that discussion would be lengthy.
• There is also an issue with how he is insisting Systemic Reviews be used. E.g. deleting content relating to the 'validity' of studies unless the review state verbatim what the study concluded. The variable nature of ME means that very large numbers of measures have been studied with low repetition (more on this below). A systemic review simply could not do more than tabulate its findings for all but the single highly researched method (and the least useful / most harmful). Flexibility and common sense are required here.
• An alternative would be to use studies referenced by the International Consensus Criteria for ME, this has a wide range of expertise in its authorship and giving its study selection adequate peer review. Again he dismissed this compromise (archived talk history of CFS page).

Research Bias and semi-objective sources (required background)

The ideal sources would be systemic reviews of content. This presents particular problems due to complete lack of involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in CFS (inhibiting funding and repetition) and state bias (discussed in the main article and applying equally to USA / Australia). This meant state funding was biased towards psychological interventions as was funding for 'systemic reviews'. Two sources are and (neither would meet MedRef they are doctors websites).
I perosnally have direct contact with patients and direct experience of this subject, however the patients 'voice' can be seen at www.MeAssocation.co.uk (run by an Authority on the field - though not one I personally agree with) or more directly on .

Any those websites would make it clear why Systemic Reviews are so problematic when compared with the extremely limited number of systemic reviews on PubMed. I could locate only four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Responses

Just based on reading this complaint, it seems that a very large amount of it deals with a content dispute or possible unintended bias caused by WP:MEDRS. That really falls far outside of what ANI can or should handle. Behavioral concerns, on the other hand, are well within the scope of things ANI is equipped to handle. This complaint really needs more diffs (but needs a lot less text). It is lengthy to the point of being impossible to address. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I stated in the complaint that he reverts to aggressively it's not possible to produce a before and after diff - you can't produce a diff between two reverted pages, hence I am unclear what you wish me to do. I would ask you to check his demeanour and language in the talk pages, this is the issue I wish the admin complaint to deal with. Please check the history and sheer number of reverts by this single individual. Leopardtail (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking quickly at these rather suggests there is an abundance of useful source material upon which to draw. If they didn't agree with the article's POV, we'd know what should change.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI does not handle content disputes. This appears to be a content dispute. Unless you can find links regarding actionable disruptive editing (gross incivility or personal attacks, persistent edit warring etc), this matter is outside of the scope of the noticeboard. I suggest following our dispute resolution process as it will result in a more effective solution. —Dark 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortened complaint with pure focus on behaviour

In response to comment please find shortened version with pure focus on behaviour.

1. This user is using inflammatory language such as suggestions other editors 'smoke crack' and the user to terms such as 'quack' and 'quackery'
2. He is reverting all edits by multiple editors breaking the spirit if not the letter of the three revert rule.
3. The extent of his reversion is so aggressive that one cannot produce diffs (one has to inspect the history log to see this) this alone speaks volumes.
4. It has come to my attention that he is fact (outing reverted) the author of a book on a psychosomatic approach to ME and is editing this article in a manner that two closely reflects that idea in that book - he is thus 'editing for personal again' by promoting the ideas in that book.
5. In response to the comment above regarding sources he is removing sources that don't suit him. Hence whether his material is soured or not his conduct is not acceptable.
6. If a person's behaviour with content is driving away other editors then it goes beyond a content dispute and becomes behavioural. Other editors manage to discuss content without rancour even in heated debate, and still find points of agreement. The problem is specific to this individual.

I wish the focus to be on the abusive and uncooperative pattern and behaviour. I take particular exception to his comment re 'smoking crack' and found it to be abusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't like the abusive language, but I'm puzzled by your accusation that he is treating these articles as a "personal fiefdom" and "abusively reverting". In the CFS article I count only 3 edits by Sciencewatcher out of the last 50. ON the Treatment article I count 7 out of the last 50. Sounds like a content dispute to me, and the apparent hyperbole in the complaint makes me wonder how seriously to take any of this. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

1. One first discludes trivial abusive material that is properly removed and sticks to real solid content. Most of the successful edits on this page belong to SC despite lack of consensus - this is equally true on the main page. Most of them are also far larger often entire sections and more polar in their view.
2. Most of the questionable reversion is also by him. This is the reason for my view. It is through prevention of successful edits by others that abusiveness is occurring. One cannot make the most minor edit to this page without reversion - if he is the majority successful contributor due to others showing more respect, then it matters little how many edits he makes.. He is achieving dominance through proper reversion.
3. If you check his book on Amazon that issues becomes far more striking.

Not sure what language is abusive. The term 'smoking crack' is used to mean someone has posted something ridiculous (as leopardtail did). Also, can someone deal with leaopardtail's attempted outing of me (above). --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your professional interest in the content is a conflict of interest in my view hence relevant to the discussion - it made immediate sense of your behaviour. The current supports the content of you book far too closely and for me raised serious questions when I compared content. This was my reason for its inclusion.

I view your own content with a similar respect to the way you view mine, however I do not sue such language and do try to remove it wholesale despite that opinion. I certainly have not expressed my view of your intelligence. The fact you defend this persistently abusive language is why I needed to complain - would rather spend time producing a balanced article. WP is quiet clear that editors should treat each other with respect whatever their views. Leopardtail (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Impersonating Cluebot NG, Vandalism, Possible sockpuppetry

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

ClueBot GN (talk · contribs) appears to be impersonating ClueBot NG. An edit summary copy and pasted from one of ClueBot's as seen in this diff clearly lacks the markup that ClueBot has. It is also suspected that this user is a sockpuppet of Karmelisgood (talk · contribs), I1217287134 (talk · contribs) and 78.16.66.61l (talk · contribs) (which is also a misleading name) because of the similarity of their disruptive edits to the Megan and Liz page by adding this poorly photoshopped NSFW image of one of the cast members nude (which is a scaled down version of this non-free NSFW image also up for deletion). Dsprc (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a job for the SPI department. Doc talk 04:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercedes-Benz Today

Mercedes-Benz Today (talk · contribs) is a newly created account and the user page shows it to be an administrator, which clearly is not the case. There are a number of page protection moves done by this editor, also. Please review and educate as necessary. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The userpage was a total fraud, a copy of User:Mark Arsten's userpage. I've blocked this one for shameless and disruptive vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The editing pattern makes me wonder if this was a sock of Myuser89 (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And User:Phongluu12 also set up a user page to impersonate an admin. Bahooka (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:68.161.242.243 removing "the Bronx" from Bronx neighborhood articles, also HelperBot glitch

For the past 11 months, this IP has essentially done nothing except remove "the Bronx" from the ledes of Bronx neighborhood articles. In March I gave the IP a final warning, and they made five edits of the exact same type today. I reported this at AIV, but an apparent HelperBot glitch is removing the report, saying that the IP has been blocked, when no block has actually been issued. Since the IP appears to be fairly static, I believe a substantial block is justified here. Can someone please take a look and issue a (real) block? Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and someone should look into that HelperBot glitch. The two edits are here and here. BMK (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent persistent nationalist edit warring on Balkans topics.

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

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

As can be seen from his block log, Angbent has been regularly blocked for edit warring on Balklans related topics. He seems to hold rather strong nationalist views and is removing references to Bulgarian or Turkish influences on Greece. He has regularly embarked on sprees of removing sourced material. He has returned after a spell to continue in the same vein. Diffs , , , , .

Some typical edit summaries:

rv nationalist-fascist pov
this is a greek city, i will report anyone contnuing the edit war
it never had bulgarian population so we don't care
rv nationalist propaganda, this is an encyclopedia
it never has had significant foreign population
this is a greek city
distorted source

AngBent no longer makes any pretence of engaging in talk, he simply revert wars a number of editors until he's blocked. Sits out the block and then returns on another edit warring spree. As can be seen in this edit when he did use the talk page it was unproductive he dismissed sources as a biased book from decades ago, as can be seen from the response all of the sources used are reliable secondary academic sources, mainly produced by authors of neutral ethnic origin.

I do not think this is an editor here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to pursue a nationalist agenda incompatible with our policy of a NPOV and is edit warring on pages subject to arbcom restrictions. WCM_email 09:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Indeffed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Insulting editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAlstom&diff=608784610&oldid=607649292 " Suggest you visit your medic to inquire about Alzheimer's."

I'm not dealing with this. I do not come here and work for nothing to be treated like this by random people.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since that comment. When it occurred, a warning against WP:NPA would be appropriate, and further such comments met with blocking the panda ₯’ 13:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This merits a NPA warning, and with all due respect, perhaps a recommendation to chill out to the complaining party. Sometimes IPs come across with some things that would be intolerably rude if said in real life. Such is anonymity. If you stay active on Misplaced Pages I guarantee you'll have worse things said to you. Again, I say this only with the best intentions; you shouldn't feel that you were wrong in complaining about this editor's statement, but your reaction seems a bit severe all things considered. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless the editor has a history of personal attacks, it's impossible to prevent rude comments before they occur. They need to be reported after they occur which you've done, Prof.Haddock. Mendaliv is right, interaction online necessitates developing a thick skin and also the ability to not take abrasive comments by anonymous editors personally. Editors need to be held accountable but it's the internet, rudeness happens. Liz 13:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nerd in Texas

Could someone please take a look at Nerd in Texas (talk · contribs)? I happened to notice yesterday that he seemed to be creating some sort of hoax or joke article in his user space, so I dropped him a talk-page note asking what his purpose was. Rather than replying, he moved the sandbox to mainspace as the (now speedied) article Gravioli. He's made some good edits, but he's also made some bad ones, as well as some inexplicable ones, and has also created a few made-up types of pages. Some of his edits, along with this sandbox of his, show that he appears to have a perhaps less-than-healthy interest in the topic of hoaxing and vandalism on WP. I suspect that he's somebody's sock, since he created the account earlier this month and quickly started throwing around templates and abbreviations like one familiar with the place, and since and his speedied article Gigacity had also been created and speedied a couple of weeks before he showed up; but I don't know who created it that time, so I can't really file an SPI. Off to notify him of this thread now. Deor (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards