Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 13 January 2016

• 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• 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?

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering , and . Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me , and .
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Misplaced Pages should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon  14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I was fairly critical of FLCC in my comments. I don't approve of their rudeness, or lack of willingness to discuss. Certainly, if a talk page discussion is started, they should contribute to finding consensus, and refrain from edit-warring in the meantime. That's what we all should do. I also agree, in general terms, with the point made above: "Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here." When I referred to "dropping the stick" I was referring to the pursuit of sanctions as a "solution" to an editing dispute. The lack of response here at ANI maybe indicates that this is perhaps not yet an ANI issue, and that WP:DR would be a better route if talk page discussion is not fruitful. Thanks. Begoon  11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Begoon. He was warned for his major civility issues in the previous ANI. Unfortunately he has not take that seriously. SO, what would you do? Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd carry on editing, adhering to policy, and establish whether my edits had consensus with talkpage discussion. I'd understand that just the ability to point to a source didn't make it reliable, or necessarily worthy of inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'd pursue WP:DR before calling for sanctions, and I'd realise that I am not the only one who notices when editors don't behave well, so I don't need to fight battles when I see it happening. These things generally work out over time. Patience pays off. Begoon  12:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All those policies are applicable only if there is a TP discussion and the editors actively participating it. In all cases coming to ANI, however, an editor should start the case and whether other editors are seeing those destruction can not justify refraining from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background. By the way, I did not ask for sanctions until I saw that he asked for sanctions. Anyway, the thread is getting too long. Let's not make it longer. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tireless edit warring and BLP violations by FreeatlastChitChat

I am pretty sure, either there are issues with competence or IDIDNTHEAR that are leading FreeatlastChitChat to wikihound other editors and create unnecessary edit wars. He is violating BLP on Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by falsely claiming people like Sanal Edamaruku, Tarek Fatah, Amartya Sen, Meera Nanda and many more to be critic of religion. While the template had been protected because of his edit warring and rollback abuse, he resumed edit warring without even sorting out the issues raised on talk page. He came to this template by wikihounding my edits and his only motive was to edit war with me. He also made personal attacks like "totally lying his ass off", yet failing to justify his violation of WP:BLPCAT. I think that it is the time when multiple editors indeed have problem with the numerous policy violations of FreeatlastChitChat and I am supporting that another block is necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 You have already been told by a Wikpedia administrator that to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. You are the one obsessed with this article and your personal version of it which only you and one other person share as compared to almost 7 other editors who oppose you based on wikipedia policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLP. You have refused to talk to anyone on the talkpage, and when I opened up a request at WP:DRN a week ago, you refused to accept that too. For you, only your view matters and you have decided not to accept any other view.

Even though a TALKPAGE is the right place to discuss this I will tell you what is wrong with your view of this template. I have already told you that We do not SOURCE ANYTHING in templates. Templates exist solely BASED on the articles which populate them. Just consider the article of Sanal Edamaruku who according to your reasoning is not a critic of religion. Just read his article. It says that

1. In 2012, he was charged by the Catholic Archdiocese of Mumbai with blasphemy. He moved to Finland to evade his arrest.
2. Edamaruku has carried out investigations and demonstrations which helped expose frauds, mystics and god men.
3. Edamaruku has been critical of India's blasphemy laws, describing them as "relics of colonial legislation" which have been abused to "hound and silence" intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs.

ALL of these facts are well sourced in this persons article. How in the name of all that is good and pure can you exclude him from a template listing critics of religion. @User:Begoon this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day. A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas has refused to accept the advice of a Misplaced Pages admin, He refuses to engage in debate at the talkpage, and refuses to participate in DRN. Just what is a person supposed to do here? @User:Slakr you unbanned me when I said I will adhere to 1PR, when you come online just explain to me how am I supposed to work with this kind of hostility? A COMPLETE refusal to participate in any debate and a complete refusal to even look at the facts which are written right in front of his eyes. What am I supposed to do? And this is not on just one article, every religious article is like some kind of holy shrine to one or two fanatics who treat it like a religious artifact which should be revered by all, they do not give a single thought to wmf:Resolution:Controversial content and think that if something offends their religion, it should be just removed ALONG with the editor who dared to insert it in the wikipedia article And a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded until he is forced to leave the wiki or is pushed into a corner until I say something harsh which is at once reported to ANI. Perhaps it is high time the other side explains their actions as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the above statement from FreeatlastChitchat wherein he states "A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas" which is EXACTLY what HE has been doing at the Racism_in_Italy, specifically the fact that he chooses to delete/revert all mentions of a racist author, Cesare Lombroso, being Jewish, when a) he self-identifies as Jewish b) he wrote an entire book on "anti-semitism" c) he contributed many articles to Jewish publications and d) he is referred to by most historians/academics/biographers as "Jewish-Italian" or "Jewish"...all of which have been heavily sourced and cited. So, in other words...pot meet kettle as they say.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet that admin failed to provide a source about Sanal Edamaruku. By putting up this original WP:SYNTHESIS about only Sanal Edamaruku you are not proving how your WP:BLPCAT violation about these many people is justified. Many editors have asked you to "provide sources" on talk page that would support them to be a critic of religion and you have failed to do so because your biggest aim on this template as well as every other article that I edited and you joined in was to bother me. Your disruption is only wasting others time and not doing any good. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article . I just copy pasted them. Any other objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that every time you evade from saying why you had mass deleted those reliable books (some of which I listed on several occasions) is clear to all the editors. If there were no problem in your behaviour you would not be blocked four time in a year and I don't want you to list the sources here because they are just examples. The main issues are your civility problems and your not actively participating the TP discussions to reach consensus. You did of course broke your promise of "adhering to 1RR" as it is evidenced. Sentences such as "this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day" and "a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded ..." are called Victim playing. Mhhossein (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has also experienced WP:HOUNDING and edit-warring at the hands of this user, I feel compelled to add my voice here. On the topic of Racism_in_Italy FreeatlastChitchat has reverted several edits without participating on the talk page (where there are EXTENSIVE discussions in place) and chosen to simply undo a vast amount of work compiled at the request/challenge of other participating editors with opposing views. I asked for mediation on this topic to gain a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_Italy , to which he declined stating "I would like to ] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors." which speaks to the fact that he is not willing to compromise or engage in discussion to reach a consensus or have the real facts/timelines be known. This editor is a MAJOR POV-pusher who sides with other like-minded individuals (most likely sockpuppets as has been alleged here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive ) and his edits are absolutely contrary to scholarship and consensus-building. He constantly threatens others with denouncing them for "edit-warring" when he is in reality the one engaging in this behavior (as his previous blocks will attest). I would strongly encourage yet another block and possible ban from certain topics (anyone can take a quick scan through his history, and it will be very obvious upon which topics he constantly seeks to impose his POV).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And we have another editor who has a strong need to put his religious POV into articles. For editors who are just going through this discussion without following the links, The request for mediation has been declined as Trinacrialucente is undoing the edits of three users, yes gentlmen, my edits are endorsed by two other editors, with only one editor trying his best to push forth a religiuos POV. Furthermore, Trinacrialucente has displayed absolute bad faith by stating that I have sock puppets. The SPI archive clealry shows that when closing the SPI an admin noted the fact that the reporter was lying, he also said that "These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks.". I am quite sure that before he posted this comment Trinacrialucente had already read the message about his request for mediation being denied, and his SPI going nowhere because he posted this comment at 22:40, 8 January 2016 while the mediation bot informed him about the rejection on 15:55, 8 January 2016, while the SPI clerk informed him about the futility of an SPI at 01:10, 8 January 2016. So it is obvious that he came here out of spite, being angry at me for having prevented his POV insertions. Even Though I have grown a highly durable and thick hide thanks to the various bad faith comments, threats and insults which seem to be the ammunition used by most POV pushers. I think I have the right to ask this guy one single question. So I would like to ask Trinacrialucente, 'DO ANY OTHER EDITORS AGREE WITH YOUR EDITS OR ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE REVERTING THE "POV PUSHING" OF THREE OTHER EDITORS?. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two others have supported my edits. Feel free to take a look. : ) In fact you probably should have done so before you went on that...direction. All it really did was support our case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm,,, no, you are wrong. The most recent history clearly shows that UnequivocalAmbivalence and RatatoskJones are Reverting your edits, not supporting them. UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly called you out saying "@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop." So my question still remains. If you feel that there are editors who have supported your edits just post a diff where these editors reverted the edits which removed your material. For if these editors who support your edits do really exist, they must have reverted me, or the other two users, when we "edit warred" to remove your "correct edits". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Support taking administrative action: The reported editor is unable to constructively participate discussions of the talk pages. Also, his/her behavior is not based on etiquette. In the summary edit of Nader Mahdavi page wrote: "‬SAFF V please stop your ridiculous reverting".Saff V. (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Comment: Saff V. has failed to mention that he did not read WP:MOS when he was asked and had to be explained on the talkpage how the MOS works, he then admitted that he was wrong and changed the text according to my wording. His own words were @FreeatlastChitchat:Yes, It is right. So, I edit the titles based on your comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never asked you to explain your reversion, I'm just focusing on your uncivil comments, a point mentioned by some other users.Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But you yourself accepted that your edits were ridiculous! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you used again bad word in your answer.Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Err... what 'bad word'...? _Fortuna 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yeah bad word! 'Ridiculous' means "extremely silly or unreasonable" or "stupid or ​unreasonable and ​deserving to be ​laughed at." It's against WP:civility and Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein Stuff and (*bad word alert*) nonsense. You are effectively trying to mute criticism by removing the language for doing so. _Fortuna 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein so when I see a ridiculous edit, what am I supposed to call it? you seem to be the owner of wikipedia whose permission I need to edit, and whose express fatwa is required in my vocabulary usage. So Herr Ayatollah what should I call a ridiculous edit from now onward? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Rather than yet another block (they don't help, FreeatlastChitchat is blocked all the time and just continues) I would support a topic ban on all articles in some way connected to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment He/She edited Little Satan article by POV terms and sentences without any summary or discussion in the talk page. I reverted his/her edits and opened new section in the talk page but he/she again reverted the article. I said to him first participate in the discussion and after conclusion we can edit. He think just to reverting the article to his/her version.Saff V. (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Saff V. the last edits to the TP are mine. I have explained my edits thoroughly, even made a list of your horrendously bad English which you inserted in the article, plus I have detailed the unreliable sources you used. Instead of answering my questions there or discussing there, you have made this comment. Bad faith editing much?

I reverted your edit and say to you participate in the talk page, but you reverted again and I reverted again and you reverted again and then wrote your reasons in the talk page. You must say your reasons before all reverting. Your style is first revert the article without any summary and discussion. If a user revert your work you revert again and write a short sentence in the summary box.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps you should create the competence to understand what "bad grammar" means when it is written in edit summary? And you should create the competence to understand what "bad sources" means when it is written in the edit summary. For your kind information "bad grammar" written in the summary means that "I have changed sentences which were borderline gibberish and using very poor English" and you should take a look at WP:MOS before reverting me.And when it is written in edit summary "bad sources" it means that the sources I removed are unreliable, and you should see if they fall foul of WP:RS before reverting me. It is not my fault that your English grammar is poor and you want to insert poor English into articles, however it is my job as an editor to copy edit your mistakes, and I do that job regularly. Also it is my job to keep unreliably sourced fringe claims out of articles and I do that quite regularly as well. you should read WP:COMPETENCE before engaging in this kind of arguments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Now I got that FreeatlastChitchat's edits are suitable examples for edit warring! You just don't understand that you have to collaboratively participate the talk page discussions before making such challengeable mass edits, but really why? After you encountered Saff V.'s revert, you made a revert at 07:40 without trying to act based on BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and helping to reach a consensus. After you got sure that the article is as you wish, you made your comment at 7:43. Saff V. reverted you alleging that you've inserted POV into the article, you again acted as if you are the only know-how of the project and kept one reverting. You went up to the red line of WP:3RR (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) which is very far from once again beyond your WP:1RR unblock promise. Note that you've shown enough disruptive behaviour so far (not only in this page) which makes you vulnerable to receive sanctions, in my view. Btw, while I'm not endorsing Saff v.'s reverts, I blame you as the one who refrained from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (Edited Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC))
• Reply to comment Eventhough I can go into an explanation that I was reverting bad grammar I will just say this. Mhhossein says (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) . I say that he is lying his ass off Simple as that, he, is, lying. I challenge him to provide diffs to back up this claim. Simple as that, you said I made three reverts, show me the diffs and I will call it quits, otherwise you are the one lying his ass off. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did 2 reverts (which is still beyond 1RR) and I'm sorry for saying that, It was not intentional. I just did not notice that the first edit was not a revert. But this does not make us ignore your edit warring. What I see is not just a copy editing of the grammatical errors, that was a re-shape needing enough discussion! By the way, your language is very very irritating and although you were warned before by admins, you are clearly ignoring wp:civility. Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have the gal to say that It was not intentional? Just how much of this witch hunting thread have you posted unintentionally? I fail to see how you can write something, press preview, then press save, and still call it "unintentional". What clause of civility have I fallen foul of btw? You were lying, I told you outright that you were lying and challenged you to prove me wrong, what am I supposed to do when you lie through your teeth? say that you are the epitome of truthfulness? Anyway I have caught you spreading falsehood once I will do it again. You say that my edit was a reshape needing enough discussion. I challenge you to point out anything I added which was either from unreliable sources, or fringe, or against wiki policy. I have been telling you again and again, wikipedia is not your holy thing, I can edit it without your permission. Anyway, show me which parts of my edit "required discussion" and "why did they require discussion". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I was bold enough to accept my mistake and say sorry for that and I don't need to explain more as you apparently don't assume my and others good faith. What you called "spreading falsehood" and "witch hunting" are just some parts of your disruptive behavior which is well sourced. Your violation of WP:civility is well spread through out the project (no just this thread) and there's no need to over repeat them (you can follow this and the previous thread from the beginning). On your reshaping the article, I'll discuss it on the its talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

dude seriously? I mean WTH? You accuse me of something and the lie your ass off about it and I am supposed to Assume Good faith? Are you frigging kidding me? So when someone tries to shoot me, I should assume good faith? Have you been assuming good faith? Does spreading falsehood about someone mean that you are assuming good faith? How about this, you assume good faith for a change and stop editing this thread every time I make an edit on wikipedia? ANI threads are not forums, you post your report and wait for others to comment on it, and then an admin takes action if required. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikihounding and harassment by FreeatlastChitchat: Besides the links presented above for being checked against hounding (, and ), I'd like to add this hounding by him which occurred just a bit ago. Mhhossein (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense and ridiculousness. here other people agree with me, no one disagrees with me, One editor is canvassing another, my comment saves the trouble of them ganging up on the article, ALL OTHER EDITORS agree with me, ALL OTHER editors AGREE WITH ME. I have told you many times, you are not the owner of wikipedia, nor is wikipedia your sacred temple. I have the right to edit and give my opinion, if my opinion is shared by all other editors in a particular discussion, it is not my fault. Perhaps you should start ANI reports about all the editors who have dared to disagree with you? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Dissanayake, Samanthi (2 June 2014). "The Indian miracle-buster stuck in Finland". BBC. BBC.
2. Shaffer, R (March–April 2013). "Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Rationalism: An Interview with Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist. Retrieved 2013-02-23."Blasfemia, libertad de expresión, y el racionalismo: Una entrevista con Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist/Europa Laicismo. March 2013. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
3. Sarkar, Sonia. "Gods of Bad Things". The Telegraph. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
4. Ryan Shaffer (15 February 2013). "Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Rationalism: An Interview with Sanal Edamaruku". The Humanist. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

FreeatlastChitchat gaming the system

Even while this discussion above about the very frequent policy violations of FreeatlastChitchat is ongoing, the user engages in a new trick. Having been involved in repeated edit warring at Muhammad, FreeatlastChitchat takes advantage of a very new WP:SPA who has already sided with him to edit war against Trinacrialucente , , . Now, first the SPA changes the lead three times , , and is reverted by three different users who restore the consensus version. Then FreeatlastChitchat jumps in and reverts to "his" version and then immediately requests page protection . Frankly, I find this kind of behavior dishonest. First of all, there was no dispute except for the one created by FreeatlastChitchat at the SPA operating in sync with him. Second, if a user wants to request protection, I find it very bad form to first revert to their own version instead of the established consensus and then immediately request protection to make sure their own POV "wins". This is combination with all the edit warring discussed in the long sections above makes me suggest a topic ban on articles connect to Islam for FreeatlastChitchat. The user has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and taken up far too much of ANI's time already. This user is here to right great wrongs, not build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - on everything related to Islam or religion as whole. He is still edit warring by making pointless edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• More Religio-Political POV First of all this is bad faith level 9000+. Just take a look at my edits and those of the so called SPA here and marvel at the great difference. According to my count, there is a NINETY SIX POINT SEVEN FIVE PERCENT difference between the two version. Furthermore my actions stopped an edit-war, made the article better and restored stability. I will just post what a completely uninvolved user said about my changes and let the closing admin/other editors gauge what I actually did. User:UberCryxic says about my version "I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for" here is his statement. I think you should read what the first line in the protection notice reads "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I think every experienced editor knows this. Furthermore your statement that "This user is here to right great wrongs" is actually quite true to be frank. Removing POV from articles is something I have always done, and wish to continue doing. This is an encyclopedia, not some religious website where everything is "too holy" and "nothing can be touched". If you do not like my edits, talk about them as per policy. The entire time you have been accusing me of bad behavior, you have cited not a single policy which prevents me from doing what I did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of bad behavior. So have a lot of other users, which might explain why you have been blocked repeatedly and why there are several ongoing threads about you. As for this incident, I think I stated it pretty clear. You had been edit warring heavily yourself on the article, then reverted to your own version and immediately requested that version to be protected. You may not like what I say or not agree with it, but don't pretend it's not clear. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud 😆😆😆! Can you please check the difference between revisions here to know why I am Laughing Out Loud! The version user:FreeatlastChitchat reverted to is actually itself the version of user:Jeppiz. I was surprised when I saw this report while checking the recent contributions of user:Jeppiz who seems to have a bad habit of fabricating & falsifying events. I actually intend to report user:Jeppiz for slandering and personal attacks.--Explorer999 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Explorer999 is the WP:SPA I mentioned who already has a long history of personal attacks such as the one above. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? He has clearly shown that you are the one lying here. My revert was to your version of the article and your complaint about it is the height of bad faith. To be frank you should strike your comments after such an egg in the face situation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What personal attack?" For starters, calling other users "liars" as he does , and as you do above, is a strong personal attack. However, this is not about him, nor about me. It's about you, but as usual your response to threads about your disruptive behavior is to try to deflect it by personal attacks against other users. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a thread about it but this thread (not started by me) is about your constant disruptions, evidenced by diffs provided by several users. It's rather revealing that you have nothing to say in defence of yourself and just continue to engage in the same behavior that got you here. However, what you fail to understand that even if your revert would be to my version (it wasn't, although very close), it wouldn't change a thing. My initial comment was about the behavior, not about being right or wrong, or agreeing with me or not. WP is not about winning, and I've reported users for violations even when I agreed with them. You seem to think it's a content dispute. It's not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying about someone who "is extensively lying" that "he is extensively lying" is not a personal attack. When you stop lying, people will stop saying that you are lying, but when you continue to lie, then what do you expect the others to say about you?! Do you expect them to say that you are telling truths when you are not! FreeatlastChitchat reverted to the same version which you yourself described here (in your edit summary) as the consensus version.--Explorer999 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat

Unfortunately we now have THREE separate threads about the disruptive behavior of FreeatlastChitchat. After his edit-warring behavior evidenced (yet again) on the Muhammad board, where I made a change, was challenged, showed my proof/citations on the Talk page, but was still reverted immediately after the change without the editor even looking, he began to accuse me of edit-warring as is his MO (evidenced in his history and on the two other ANI reports here). Rather than continue the discussion on the Talk page, he issued a warning on MY talk page to which I told him NOT to post on my page again https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat. He then immediately did so, simply to bother or disrupt our activity. If this was just one example, I think we could all just talk it out. But there are now THREE SEPARATE ANI incidents on this editor. It is time for all of us to deal with this issue as it is completely unscholarly and disruptive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ( and ) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to keep all about FreeatlastChitchat discussions together. It's ridiculous to have them spread all over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority

Quick note: I'm posting a quick summary as well as a collapsed detailed explanation.
There is a conflict which has been ongoing at this page for several years now. I've known for some time that there are people who mistakenly think that any appeal to authority (which would necessarily include WP's policy on citing reliable sources) is a fallacy, regardless of the nature of the appeal, the authority, or the participants. One or more of these people seem to have recently established ownership of this article, edited it to suit their view, and are fighting against any attempt to correct it. I believe an administrator is needed at this point, because the arguments have never progressed past the point of these editors claiming that the sources are all wrong. I (and one other recently, and several others over the past few years) have been trying to make them understand the issue, but to no avail. Even when I quote the sources directly, they either ignore it, argue with the source, or claim that the quote means the opposite of what it says. Recently, I have been almost the only one arguing for the sourced definition of the term, and it's becoming more and more difficult to reign in my frustration at the complete lack of ground the other side is willing to give. A longer explanation of my involvement and the issue is collapsed, below.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Appeal to authority is basically a philosophical concept concerning formal logic. In formal logic you can't make a syllogism or a statement that says that A=true because B says so and he should know. Basically whether the authority is an expert or not doesn't matter when it comes to formal logic. In formal logic you go all the way yourself and basically that's not always the way we work in daily life and certainly not the way we work on Misplaced Pages. We're not in the business of making syllogisms here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but, first, Misplaced Pages does need to discuss formal logic properly. Second, the argument from authority also applies in science, consisting of dismissing a new theory because it is inconsistent with old theories (authorities) rather than submitting to experiment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Thank you. Your final two sentences are perfect summations of my position with regards to the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is a fallacy in informal, not formal logic. You can make a formally valid syllogism that say that A is true if B says so. For example:

1. If B says A is true, then A is true.

2. B says A is true.

3. Therefore, A is true.

This is a formally valid modus ponens argument. Remember, formal logic is fundamentally concerned with the implications between statements, even false statements. Thus, it will investigate the logical implications of even false statements (such as (1) often is). Original Position (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The short version, not containing any diffs, doesn't make the case that there is article ownership behavior. The long version is

The assertion of editing against consensus is untrue. A review of the talk page and the talk page archives will show that there has been a consensus for years to include the fact that the argument is not always a fallacy. I am merely the most active current participant. The current state of the article is relatively recent. Additionally, at least five other users have supported my position either on the talk page, by edits, or in edit summaries within the past 7 months, whereas the opposition consists of two registered users and one to three IP addresses. 33-45% is not a consensus. That may not represent a consensus in my favor, but it absolutely does not represent a consensus of the opposing view. Additionally, I have never understood that WP:CON ruled to the exclusion of WP:V and WP:OR when those policies conflict. If WP is to be ruled entirely by popular opinion, then what use is it as an encyclopedia? Finally, I would like to point out yet again, that the article as it currently stands makes the case that the Misplaced Pages itself is a collection of fallacies, and does so using the argument that it explicitly defines as a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't thoroughly read the article yet and that there may very well be something wrong with it. However, Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in philosophy or formal logic. I think it is important to separate these two issues. As Robert McClenon has written above; "Misplaced Pages does need to discuss formal logic properly". And as such it should be described in its own right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed there isn't consensus against the original poster's edits, that is all the more reason why a Request for Comments would be an appropriate way to resolve the content issue. If there is indeed article ownership behavior, then reporting that behavior with a few diffs rather than a hidden wall of text would be a better way to request admin action. I suggest that this discussion be closed with advice to the original poster to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's more to it than ownership. The collapsed portion contains diffs showing canvassing, as well. I suggest you read it. It's not as long as you seem to think it is, unless you insist upon reading quotes from 14 sources which I provided. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I agree. The article should explain how the argument works, and what its features are in both formal and informal logic. As things stand, the article defines its features in formal logic (rather poorly, though that's due mostly to the sheer number of edits recently), then proceeds to insist this is the end of the matter. If you take a look at the article, you'll see it doesn't contain a single example of an appeal to a false authority, but only of cases where legitimate authorities happened to be wrong, or their authority was improperly applied to the issue (being used to dismiss evidence, for instance). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to say that I believe progress is being made on the page. Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version with MjolnirPants. But instead of being willing to compromise and discuss, they quickly get impatient and pull out of discussions or decide to escalate. MjolnirPants has more or less said that the only version of the page they'll accept is one which fully aligns with the view he holds on the issue - building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way. FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version Which edits were those? The edit removing a reliable source which I quoted to support my position, or perhaps one of these edits reverting changes I made to the article? , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Or perhaps it was the edits which reverted changes by others users who agreed with me? , .

building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way Kind of like trying to build a consensus with someone who states that broad agreement among every cited expert is actually a minority opinion? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

All I'm seeing in this thread (both long and short editions), and in the talk page, especially by FL or Atlanta, gives me a strong suspicion that we're in a Dunning-Kruger effect situation. I'll keep it short: the weight of sources talking about it being a fallacy is because people are wont to use appeals to authorities in deductive arguments (in which the appeal is a fallacy), but it's a different situation with an inductive argument. If you don't understand this, you need to read up on the subject a good deal, and further tendentious editing in favor of your misunderstanding will not be tolerated. Nothing wrong with editing a subject with which you're not profoundly familiar, but repeatedly reverting others based on your own misunderstanding is profoundly disruptive. And this one is even worse, introducing an outright hoax: having watched the video, I can assure you that the source does not address the issue of "speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise". This, therefore, is your final warning: Perfect Orange Sphere and FL or Atlanta, if you persist in these editing patterns, a block will result. I strongly suggest that you either stop editing in this subject area or that you restrict your editing to obvious tiny fixes (e.g. spelling) and talk-page discussions. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the conduct issues--I'm not familiar enough with wiki's norms to do that--but on the content issue, MjolnirPants is correct. The primary content dispute, as I understand it, is about whether all uses of an appeal to authority are fallacious, or only some. Of course, you could have the view that appealing to authority is always fallacious, but this is not the consensus view in philosophy. Mjolnir has already cited many sources for this, but to sum up, the best online philosophy guides (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities." , both written by professional philosophers) say that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. Furthermore, standard textbooks in Intro to Logic classes (eg Hurley) also acknowledge this (Hurley says "Of course, if an authority is credible, the resulting argument will contain no fallacy." p.139 of A Concise Introduction to Logic). In other words, it is standard in discussions of the argument from authority to distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious uses of this kind of argument.

Unfortunately, this distinction is almost completely absent from the wiki article on this subject. For instance, the opening summary paragraph states, "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning...Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it. " But as shown, logic textbooks and standard guides actually teach that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. These sources, and the other sources presented by MjolnirPants, should be sufficient to justify the proposed changes to this page. Original Position (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just a bump, Perfect Orange Sphere is still engaging in the exact same behavior and I want to try to keep this section open in case Nyttend isn't able to deal with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is build a consensus and accommodate potential concerns, and the discussion and edits on the Talk show this clearly. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

Shmuly Yanklowetz

Shmuly Yanklowetz appears to be paying his staff to delete all statements that do not paint him in a 100% positive light, although the controversies section is balanced, researched, and sourced. Can you please prevent further deletions? Nothing is false, defamatory, or abusive.

This section that I removed clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP. For biographies of living persons, you need to stick closely to sourced material from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please. The article in question is Shmuly Yanklowitz. The original poster is User:184.177.112.118. There is edit-warring, mostly by IPs. Semi-protection might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has created a large "Controversy" section, which likely violates WP:WEIGHT at the very least. OhNoitsJamie 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And WP:COATRACK 69.12.26.174 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add specifically a case of WP:OUTING in this edit: written twice, above and in the "Censorship" section where the editor identifies an IP address by name and place of employment. It needs to be revdel'd and maybe more. Scr★pIron 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've revdel'd all of the user's edits and have emailed Oversight. If any friendly admins (I said FRIENDLY!) wouldn't mind doublechecking my RevDel work, I would appreciate it. I haven't done much RevDel-ing and it confuses my brain. (I'm pretty sure I picked the wrong criteria). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ScrapIronIV, in the case of RevDel or Oversight requests it's best just to either contact an active administrator directly, or email the oversight team directly, rather than posting a link to private information to one of the most watched pages on Misplaced Pages.--kelapstick 21:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - There are more instances of this same data in other edits today, I'll get together with @Cyphoidbomb: on it, and won't post here. Scr★pIron 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's one hell of a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, you are just jealous of his awesome name. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism about a related topic and left a note about this issue. Sir Joseph 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir Joseph. I removed some gunk out of the article earlier today. The WT:JUDAISM discussion is about fine detail of how Yankelowitz's (and others' in his niche of the Jewish world) religious views should appear in Misplaced Pages's Category scheme. --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

• Moved to AN. BMK (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Edmund Janniger

A vivid deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Edmund_Janniger was closed today by a non-admin, despite the fact that it was a contentious discussion with nearly equal numbers of editors arguing for keeping or deleting the article. Per WP:NACD, a non-admin should not attempt to close contentious discussions. Additionally, the discussion was still ongoing and there was clearly no consensus reached, so the editor's choice to close as keep was procedurally incorrect (could only be closed under no consensus).

I disagree as to any relevance to the discussion still being ongoing. The discussion can be closed, even if still ongoing, after seven days.

Can be closed after 7 days if there is clear consensus one way or another. If no consensus is reached, the discussion is normally relisted. But that's nor relevant here anyway - the discussion was relisted.

The real question is whether it should have been closed as Keep, which it was, or as "No Consensus". Since No Consensus results in a Keep, is it worth making an issue about the close?

It makes a fundamental difference for any future renomination. kashmiri  02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion but another (non-admin) editor (Cachets687, who argued for keeping) is now reverting. Please someone with more authority than me could take a look at the way the AfD was closed, and either restore the AfD or close appropriately as no consensus? Many thanks. kashmiri  01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this sort of issue is what Deletion Review is for. Take it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Things take ages there ;) kashmiri  02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision to keep was made by consensus following an AfD debate which was relisted 3 times. Voices to delete often came from dormant accounts that reappeared for the discussion. Kashmiri has made edits to a closed AfD debate. Comments regarding an article made following the closure of an AfD debate can only be written on the article's talk page or via other appropriate discussion pages. It is also important to note that Razr Nation, who closed the discussion, was acting in accordance with WP:NACD. Razr Nation is an experienced editor; Kashmiri is not an administrator. I have reverted the misguided steps taken by Kashmiri and have posted on the article's talk page. (WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should, as a rule, only close discussions if they are fairly experienced editors, and have participated at previous deletion discussions...Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO.") Cachets687 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As User:Cachets687 was involved in the discussion, they should not be taking any actions regarding the discussion. I'm reviewing the discussion now. Nakon 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick clarification: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO." per WP:NACD. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-closed the AFD as No consensus. WP:DRV is that way. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thanks for stepping in and solving this issue. → Call me Razr Nation 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, DRV very rarely overturns a "no clear consensus" close ... one problem was that while there was a majority of "keep" !votes, there were some "delete" !votes from participants who are not normally Misplaced Pages active editors, which I found odd. Collect (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There were a few delete !votes that may have been from external sources, but I found that there were enough legitimate editors that !voted delete and had significant arguments to warrant a "no consensus" outcome for the discussion. Nakon 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Zachlita harassment, personal attacks

After Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive, in which it was apparent to me and Brianhe (talk · contribs), based on what we could see at the time, that Zachlita (talk · contribs) was a sock of Spacecowboy420, Zachlita has begun a campaign of WP:HOUNDING against me. It appears Zachlita's account was created to assist Spacecowboy420 on the article Dodge Tomahawk which grew in a a protracted dispute, which led to a AN/I complaint by Spacecowboy420 against me. Zachlita, monitoring my contributions, followed me from Dodge Tomahawk to AN/I to speak against me.

On an unrelated article, I added some photos I'd taken to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Spacecowboy420 followed me to that article, so he could revert. This led to an edit war over removing US English from the article, for which Spacecowboy420 got a 24 hour block for 3RR violation. Another editor who has been aiding Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers appeared, and argued against me on the talk page. Like Zachlita, 72bikers had joined Misplaced Pages recently, jumped into the battle on Dodge Tomahawk, followed me to AN/I, and then followed me to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Next thing you know, who should appear but Zachlita, monitoring my contributions to see where else he could argue against me.

In an unrelarted article, a new editor added some unsourced performance claims "based on personal knowledge" which we routinely revert. I also removed some material tagged since 2014. I added a standard "welcome-unsourced" message to the new editor's talk page. The new editor replied asserting WP:TRUTH and expert knowledge, typical of anyone who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Who should show up, but Zachlita? He added encouragement to add more original research to articles, and made a personal attack that "some people think they own wikipedia and aint nice to new editors."

I removed the bad advice and personal attack, and warned Zachlita to stop making personal attacks and hounding me. Brianhe has previously warned Zachlita for civility violations on Dec 24 and again and again on Dec 26. Zachlita next restored the uncited performance claims to Honda SS125, which I reverted and warned Zachlita again for adding unsourced content, and carrying on personal grudges and harassment. He responded by restoring the personal attack to the new editors talk page.

I don't think there's any point in me reverting or templating any more. A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers or Spacecowboy420 at this point. I expect we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

all the editors mentioned in this report edit motorcycle articles, and we all watch eachothers edits and turn up on the same articles. i dont agree with some of dennis edits so of course im gonna revert them.it aint personal.and dont call me a sock again plz. you made a sock report and it was proven i aint a sock.you just dont like people who dont agree with you Zachlita (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noting briefly that I concur with Dennis's assessment of the involved editors' behavior. Zachlita's latest sarcasm-laden rejections of my offer to try to find common ground on which to solve a literal one-word dispute show that there are some serious misunderstandings of how collaboration on Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. This follows prior remarks that indicated poor understanding of community norms of civility and consensus-building like this and this. I'm a bit flummoxed as to how to move forward when faced with an attitude as inflexible as this. Brianhe (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't stalk or hound anybody, Zachlita. I watch my watchlist. I gave you links to the harassment policy and you made the choice to ignore it. You didn't find any of these article on your watchlist; you found them by looking at my list of contributions and finding ones you could pick fights over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

this is about dennis and brian not agreeing with edits.first sock reports and now this. me and other editors didnt see a need to change wording, so youre saying im inflexible and have civility issues. this is about content not about me. Zachlita (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see how you might be unhappy about the SPI but it's not an excuse for retaliation by stalking. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground is another thing you've been repeatedly directed to read. These links to policy and guidelines are not magic spells that Wiki editors throw around or cards we play in a game. You're supposed to actually read them because there's stuff there you need to know. When you're told "you will be blocked if you continue to ignore this policy", you should listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just annoyed because consensus isn't in your favor. You try to police every motorcycle article and take people to ani when they don't agree with you. You're the subject of civility reports and 3rr reports so don't come across as an injured party.you don't get consensus so now you resort to fishing for blocks.Zachlita (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating the failed argument of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility. The closing editor, Chesnaught555, said "Take it to COIN. This has gone on for too long. Blocking Mr. Bratland would be punitive to say the least. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK I think." You should have read DROPTHESTICK and followed that advice. You should have read and heeded the harassment and battleground and civility warnings. You are not a newbie and have been repeatedly warned that the way you have been going about this is going to get you blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I got dragged into this. But I take offence to that I am just following someone around. Dennis why have you been speaking badly of me and never notifying me of the discussion. Is this how you treat or speak of editors that disagree with you? I think what should be really discussed here is mr bratlands behavior . What gives you the right to write your novel theories and opinions have no bearing and much much more. Dennis has a unwillingness to accept consensus. Even when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with dennis . He writes a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender . Even when majority disagrees with him he feels that for some reason he deserves some concession in his favor accept a good comprise, and move on. Maybe if his behavior were less obtrusive he would have less conflicts with other editors. Not sure what to make of this A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers. What is this to imply? What gives you the right to leave this on my talk page? Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another warning that you need to heed. Please read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. You took note of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility and picked out 3 editors whom you chose because they expressed negative attitudes towards me as an individual. Because you thought they'd side against me, you canvassed them here, here and here. The guideline says "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)" is inappropriate. Combined with your pattern of Wikihounding, incivility, and tendentious editing, canvassing to stack votes is likely to get you blocked form editing. If you have trouble believing me, I'm sure experienced editors like Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs) or Skyring (talk · contribs) can convince you that these rules apply to your behavior, and you should stop.

  Please find some other way to build an encyclopedia and avoid deliberate confrontations.

  The sad thing is, the discussion you were canvassing and vote stacking for was one where I had not even argued against you or taken a position on the issue at hand. I said "I can't find any top speed tests" on the 1199 R, and so didn't commit to anything. But your obsession with me made you see things that weren't there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you have to or the right to berate or harass other editors that disagree with you? 72bikers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is following and harassing who? 72bikers (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, I was about to request a block of you here at AN/I, but I felt like you had not been sufficiently warned. Since you were not the subject of this, I'm not required to notify you. Instead I posted the warnings you copy-pasted above (you need only use diffs by the way; it's more readable). I assume you got to this AN/I the same way you found your way to the other pages you have been hounding me on, checking my contributions and looking for any controversy you could participate in. And here you are, as expected. I expect you will continue to hound me, and continue to insert yourself into any topic I'm involved in until you're blocked.

IP address data might imply that you, Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita are not socks but you walk and talk and quack like socks. Perhaps meatpuppets, or a little of both. Or you all simply like to disrupt Misplaced Pages in exactly the same way. No matter what we call it, it has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What gives you the right to berate and harass me and make unsupported claims. I have only run across you on motorcycle or motorcycle related articles. Are you to imply that my interest in motorcycles is in some way related to me following you around. Shame on you sir for not allowing others to disagree with you! 72bikers (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is your uncivil behavior towards other editors. Leaving unprovoked threating messages on editors talk pages. Is that just your effort to imply some authoritative message to editors that disagree with you. If anything has been proven here is that you have scoured my contributions to find something to throw in my face.following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. When all I did was just look for editors that were not your personal friend that Vote-stack for you. To give a unbiased opinion on a article that's it. Please stay off my talk page with your uncivil intimidating and harassing behavior thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers since you're here, maybe you can explain why you templated Dennis with Wikihounding and following another user around for using the talkpage of an article he created five years ago? This seems like nothing more than a deliberate effort to block Dennis from access to contributing to articles. Despite your opinion on the "validity" of his reasons for requesting a one word change, he is allowed to use the talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So he is allowed to leave threating messaged on my talk page just because I disagree with him? For what possible reason would he legitimately have for harassing and threating me. Why should he be aloud to make unsupported claims against editors. Then go and do the very thing he is claiming others have done. How is this behavior acceptable? 72bikers (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is right there in your edit history. It's an almost unbroken record of grudge edits, on pages chosen via stalking. The canvassing is right there. If an admin needs me to post diffs of every specific instance of these policy violations, I can do that. Watchlists are a permanent record; it proves to an admin that you weren't watching any of those articles before your pals started disputes with me on them. I was hoping you would actually read the policies I linked to in the warnings so you would realize you have to stop. But I don't think you're ever going to get the point, if you're still trying to convince anybody that it's "just because I disagree". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with you sir. All that shows was I edit motorcycle pages. IF anything you are stalking my contributions and guilty of following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior . why are you searching through my contributions if not to just throw them in my face. Is it not that's what you are claiming I am doing and you just showed your guilty of doing just that. What brought me here is your unsupported threats on my talk page. 72bikers (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The meatpuppet claims are not realistic. Please note that I have not made a report regarding brianhe turning up on every ani report, sock report, talk page dispute and dispute resolution that you are involved in. Because despite him supporting your views every time, I respect his right to have different views from me. Try to have the same good faith in editors that disagree with you and we might have less time in ani reports. You do this every time. Some edits a motorcycle article that you think you own, you revert them with a scathing summary and template them, then when they dare to undo your edit or answer back, you go on a month long dispute rant, ignoring consensus and picking the rules that suit you, while ignoring those that don't. In the end you either get your way because people are tired of dealing with you, or it ends up in another ani report. You might have good knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules, but your presence here is far more disruptive than most vandals.you drive away good editors, you're unwilling to accept consensus and you turn every minor content discussion into a major dispute, unless you get your own way. That sort of attitude turns wikipedia into a bitter and unpleasant place.Zachlita (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(Out of order reply) For the record, Zachlita, lest my silence be taken as acquiescence of your claim that I "support views every time". I pick instances to support Dennis, and other editors, carefully. You'll see for example that I was completely absent at Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal c. September–December 2015, or the surrounding actions at 3RRN. I assume good faith about the reasons for your incorrect conclusion, perhaps to be due to your lack of long-term perspective as a Misplaced Pages contributor. – Brianhe (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles#New first place holder began with Brian asserting the H2R should be listed, and me chiming in to contradict him. No basis for these imaginary accusations. They're just an attempt to fling mud and confuse the issue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Zach, you cannot revert edits on the basis that you "don't agree with ". Mr. Bratland has been here for a rather long time, and it is clear that he knows quite a fair amount of information on motorcycling. Personally attacking him was not the answer, nor will it ever be.

I request that a CheckUser be performed on User:Zachlita and User:Spacecowboy420. This will confirm whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring here. If it isn't sockpuppetry, it's almost definitely meatpuppetry. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

dennis has been here a long time and he knows lots about bikes.and that doesnt excuse him ignoring rules on consensus civility and 3rr. how long does an editor have to be here before they can ignore rules? im not a sockpuppet. thats a proven fact. neither are all the other editors who disagree with dennis on many articles and ani reports. thats like saying you and brian are sockpuppets because youre taking his side. Zachlita (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sockpuppet of Brian, but that's a strange comparison to make considering that people do make sockpuppets to make it seem like consensus is on their side. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter -- sock, meat, same IP, different IPs -- it's the behavior that matters. If Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers could at least express that they understand what Wikihounding, harassment, and vote stacking are, and could express intent to obey the basic policies, you could imagine them putting this behind them and going their own way, to focus on writing some articles instead of on their grudge against me. But all I see from the three of them (or one of them, whatever) is denial and shifting blame. I think they're pleased with what they've accomplished so far and intend to do more of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports? Do you prefer to edit constructively, or is it the conflict with other editors you crave? Your recent appearance here sparked a series of editors posting links to a long history of this sort of behaviour, and your attacks on other editors above merely underscore the problem. Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was I being stalked or not? Look at the diffs and you tell me. Was Zachlita canvassing or not? Are Spacecowboy420 and his pals following me from one article to the next, or not? Does it surprise you that somebody with a grudge against me would try (and fail) to get me blocked at AN/I? Does it surprise you that if I'm being hounded, harassed, and the target of vote stacking, that at some point I'm going to be forced to come back here to AN/I to put a stop to it? Look at 72biker's first edits here and at Commons. They were all blatant copyright violations. I had no choice but revert them, he took offense, and joined up with Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita. Or maybe they knew each other all along. Or are the same person. What difference does it make? Do you think it should be allowed to continue?

If 72bikers is just a newbie editing in good faith, you could have done him a favor when he canvassed you for vote stacking. You could have given him a friendly understanding of the policy he was violating and convinced him to stop hounding me. Instead, you seem to have joined up with him.

The reasons why I'm here at AN/I are right there in the diffs for anyone to see. The question is why are you always right on my heels? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, Dennis. When I saw your name come up again so soon, I looked in. I don't care what you edit, though I do mind how it is done. Could you answer the question I asked, please? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw a chance to snipe at me again? I told you why I'm back here at AN/I. If this isn't Wikihounding, what is?

Do I edit constructively? After my three stalkers went to Dodge Tomahawk and deleted every word of independent criticism and objective commentary, I responded by going and digging up books and articles and uncovering all sorts of new facts, creating a new, expanded and comprehensive Draft:Dodge Tomahawk which met every one of their objections, bringing far more balance to the article than anything they ever did. I think my work speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you answer the question, Dennis? Evading it just makes me wonder why it is difficult for you. As mentioned above, I was asked to look at the article you mention, and your agressive support of the nonsense word "winningest" in our encyclopaedia struck me as odd. I have asked you multiple times to stay off my talk page, and yet, despite the recent ANI discussion on this very point, where you were nearly blocked and promised to behave better in future, you have just done it again. This pattern of behaviour is not one that is usually associated with a constructive editor. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You asked a bunch of questions. How many answers must you have? I know, you want me to answer the question, "Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others?" You're demanding an answer to that question? See Have you stopped beating your wife, perhaps? You know two other editors worked with me on Draft:Dodge Tomahawk? A fourth editor supports the compromise on that article, but is being stonewalled by -- guess who? I've collaborated for years on things like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions and WP:MC-MOS.

I'm happy to let others judge my contributions. You have nothing on me but an old grudge that you won't let go.

I have a question for you, and for the admins: should I put all the Noticeboards on my watchlist, and whenever I see the name of an editor I once had a conflict with, I insert myself into the middle of it, and say, "Yeah, that guy, he's no good, let me tell you about that guy..."? Should I do that? Should everyone do that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not demanding you answer the question, Dennis. It's interesting that you chose to answer a different question, that's all. I can't make you change your behaviour to other editors – that's something that can only come from within. Adopting the position that it is always the other guy's fault is another evasion. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which question I didn't answer. You didn't answer my question either. Should I monitor all the Noticeboards for people I don't like? Are you sure you're helping here? You muddy the waters but will the admins have an easier time sorting this out because you came along and unloaded your old baggage? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above, friend. If you see your behaviour as perfect, then obviously any suggestion for improvement is nonsensical. Pardon my intrusion. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does my behavior have to be perfect before I get to say I've had enough Wikihounding? Would I be more perfect if I monitored all the Noticeboards for people I have it in for? I want to know if you think everyone should to that. Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw my name at AN/3?

Closing Admin Please consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions for Skyring (talk · contribs). The guy is watching these Noticeboards for the names of people he doesn't like, and haranguing them with loaded questions laden with false premises, e.g. "why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports?" It's one thing for an objective, uninvolved, third party to help resolve noticeboard issues, but Skyring is tendentiously using these boards for his own WP:BATTLEGROUND, picking his targets based on his grudges. It goes without saying that he thinks I'm the one who should be sanctioned, to which I say, again, look at the evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis whether you choose to believe it or not I hold no grudge towards you. Why would I care that you removed and informed me that some of my very first edits were not to policy that is such a trivial matter. And if anything I appreciated you sharing your knowledge of the rules of Misplaced Pages and other things wiki. Such as the talk page I never even really noticed these before. But now make it a point to check and read on every page I go to. And in doing so had come across some of your post on ram air Is this just somebody hypothesizing? or that it works at all -- I would be quite interested in learning more that. Sources? I thought I would return the favor and share my knowledge from working as a motorcycle mechanic and rider for 25 years and inform you and show the validity of these thing . And on your other post about motorcycle dry weights and wet weights .And after explaining to you and showing you sources on this information I believe you thanked me. But now that I have showed a difference in opinion from you. Or sought out someone who was not a close friend of yours for a third party opinion. Or that my opinion appeared inline with others you some how feel are out to get you I am stalking or harassing you. Would it not be true that I would have run into you on more than just the very few motorcycle pages I have contributed to. Or after reading this the any number of notice boards that you seem to be involved in. And I am only here to find this because of your behavior that I wanted to bring to the attention of the admins. Of Leaving threating and harassing post to my talk page. And why just because I choose to have a difference of opinion on a edit that to your even words. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to who you? So after all the thing you said of me here and else were these unsupported claims of sock or meat or just someones pawn or other nasty things .Then scouring my contribution for something to try and throw in my face. And the nasty threats left on my talk page. Is it not you that is guilty of stalking and harassment and just bad behavior? Born out of what looks to be paranoia. And now appears like you have some grudge against me. 72bikers (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a civility issue between Dennis Bratland and Zachlita. Why is my name (amongst others) being dragged into it? There has already been a sock puppet/master report regarding suspicions that I was in some way connected to Zachlita and/or Flyer22 Reborn Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive and the conclusion of the involved admin on that report was The two accounts are Unrelated. Closing Please don't use this incivility report to make accusations unrelated to that topic of the report, that have already been proven to be wrong. I don't wish to have any more negative interactions with you, Dennis. You, Brianhe, 72Bikers, Zachlita and myself all have similar interests and edit the same articles, surely it's much better that we act in a friendly (or at least civil) manner towards each other. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar interest? There's a few thousand motorcycling articles. Are you suggesting the articles in which I first made an edit, and then you came along after me to revert, were on your watchlist before you saw me edit them? Your watchlist can be checked to see if it's true. The evidence shows that you took no interest in these article until after I touched them, and then you followed after me and -- surprise -- found a problem with what I had done. Why on earth would anyone want to delete Talk:Liter bike if not because you were following me around? Are you denying it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't wish to distract from the main purpose of this report, or get dragged into any further personal discussions as this is a civility report against another editor, so I will make this as succinct as possible. Like many other editors, I used the "contribs" button when I interact (positively,neutrally or negatively) with another editor. It's a great way to find interesting/active topics to edit or sometimes just an interesting topic to read. You are a prolific editor and have been for about a decade, almost every sports bike article I come across has your name on it somewhere, of course I will end up on topics that you have contributed towards, even if I never touched the "contribs" button. The Litre bike page was something that hadn't been edited since 2008 and just redirected to another article, I'm sorry if making a deleting it offended you, but I thought that it was a prime candidate for deletion, it was not an edit designed to annoy or insult you. How about the Bajaj Pulsar 200NS article? You edited it, and then I went there and reverted an IP editor's contribution back to your version, in order to remove some silly promotional content. Do you also think that reverting back to your version was unacceptable? I've made many attempts to inform you that despite our differences of opinion on some article content, I have no negative personal feelings against you, no desire to take any of this personally and that I just want to get on with editing some bike articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally we can agree. You've been using the contribs button to see what I've been doing lately, so that you can involve yourself in it. Not cool. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

+

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

−

Please don't twist my words. I use the contribs button with many editors that I have interacted with, because it helps me locate interesting articles. 99% of the edits that I follow lead me to an interesting article to read, and nothing more.

I don't involve myself because of you, I edit an article if it needs editing. I edit based on content, not based on the editor. If I had blindly reverted your articles based merely on the fact that you had made the edit, I could understand your attitude - but I haven't. I have disagreed with you on some edits, supported your edits in other cases and made totally unrelated edits in other cases. 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Your last effort is, once again, a total rejection of any compromise. An editor tried to meet you half way, and you didn't even make a counter offer. You stonewalled. This is the pattern on every conflict you instigate. You track people you don't like, revert them, and if they try to discuss, you refuse to bend. Your close associates Zachlita and 72bikers follow suit with perfect regularity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear on the point at issue here. It is one word. Spacecowboy420 replaced the made up word "winningest" with "most successful", and from that Dennis Bratland edit-warred, making four reversions in a hundred minutes, made personal attacks against other editors, intruded himself on a talk page where he had been repeatedly asked not to go, and commenced this ANI report claiming that those holding contrary views were all sockpuppets of each other engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. All this over one word which has no place in a reference work. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a dishonest way to characterize what happened, and what I said. Please stop trying tracking the disputes I have with other editors so you can attack me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, I took a look at the history here and it seriously looks like you are edit-warring to include the word 'winningest' in an article. Which looks really really stupid. And by 'stupid' I mean, 'why on earth are you wasting everyone's time with this rubbish'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 was edit warring and recieved a 24 hour block for it. The issue was WP:RETAIN. I looked at every dictionary I can find and it tells me 'winningest' is US English, just like 'petrol' is UK English. Apparently some editors like Skyring think if a faceless account on the internet says, "Well, I'm American and I don't like winningest" then that trumps what dictionaries say. I thought that's how Urban Dictionary works, not Misplaced Pages.I explained that repeatedly, but instead I get called stupid by people who cite no sources, just opinions about which words they like and don't like.

Spacecowboy420 came to the XR-750 article to delete three closeup photos of the bike I added. The article previously had 7 side-views of the bike; he changed it to have 8 of the same side view, removing the 3 photos that were unique. Why? Because of who added the photos. Skyring, Zachlita, and 72bikers mobbed me at Harley-Davidson XR-750 because that is what they do: look for disputes they can join. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced a discussion at WP:3RRN. Incidentally, the last three reverts were made within a space of five minutes. Perhaps there is a temper control issue in play. I also note that Dennis seems to accuse me of being a sock of SpaceCowboy420 above, by providing a diff of one of my talk page comments and saying it was SC420's. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got to stop mischaracterizing what others say and do. You are Wikihounding me. Nobody said you were a sock. You monitor 3RRN, AN/I, and who knows what other noticeboards, and when you see the name of somebody you have a grudge against, you weigh in against them. And now you're forum shopping over at 3RRN.

I see I mixed up the diff of Skyring's comment with this diff of Spacecowboy420. It doesn't make much difference -- it's the same thing from both of them. The dispute over 'winningest' was over, and now they're both stonewalling by refusing to accept any compromise. Yet they accuse me of not being able to collaborate. If you guys are editing in good faith, why not meet Brian halfway? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you are making this appear like you are doing all this just because you are not getting your way. The edit that was proposed by your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable. Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you. so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution or better any time soon. Maybe these language issues can be discussed later under better circumstances and with no time that has pass you kept up your efforts. The only thing that has change is your effort on notice boards to get editors blocked or leave threating messages on talk page to scare. It looks as if you are doing this just to get your own way and have no opposition. 72bikers (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, you've re-posted the same point, what, five times now? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, all this talk, edit-warring, abuse, reports and intrusions into the time of editors and admins, because you want to keep one nonsense word in an article. If someone wants to remove "winningest" from an article, they should be commended for making a simple and obvious improvement, and the community should not have to wade through this every time you don't get your way. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE and not a good thing for the project. May I suggest that you pick your battles better. Come out with all guns blazing when there's something that really matters. Not this crap. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I let that drop, an admin already decided the edit warring issue, and you two want to keep filibustering about it. Because you so respect everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis over exaggerating a issue does not make it go away. It has only been twice on these specific issues but three altogether on this similar behavior of yours. And all three times you have never address these issues. Is it because you know them to be true? These issues are at the heart of all this nonsense. Blaming others or wasting time or stonewalling you or someone's personal grudge over some very trivial issue. all this just because someone choose to have a different opinion from yours and did not want to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages just to for some reasoning of yours to appease you. I don't see how any of your logic here has been sound or does any service to you. 72bikers (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you feel that you can contribute to Misplaced Pages while never once accepting a compromise, or backing down from your position? And it's a perfectly acceptable practice to track others' contributions so three or four of you can pile on them in discussions? And you have no problem with canvassing in order to vote-stack discussions with like-minded editors? I've provided diffs of all these behaviors from your tight little group, and your response is that every bit of it is A-OK? And so you have no intention of stopping? Because that is the only reason we're here. The only reason anybody is blocked from editing is to stop the problematic behavior when nothing else works, not as punishment. And you're not stopping voluntarily, are you?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Look into your heart, Dennis, and ask yourself if your own comments do not apply to yourself. All this fuss over one little word that you seem unable to relinquish. No compromise, just edit-warring and personal attacks. Tranquility comes from within, and I'm not seeing the detatched, restful, productive editor that ten years makes of most here. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop posting blatant falsehoods. I did back down on the "single word" issue that you keep harping on. I offered numerous concessions on the Dodge Tomahawk issue -- I provided Draft:Dodge Tomahawk as evidence of how much work I went to in answer to the demands of these guys, finding many new sources and writing a significant amount of content to balance the points of view, which is what they asked of me. You are a (fucking) liar, Pete/Skyring. Please cease this behavior. It's not acceptable, any more than your forum shopping and other obvious harassment. You should never have involved yourself here; you have too much emotional baggage to accomplish anything except fill this discussion easily refuted slanders and throw gasoline on the fires. Stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you speak of stop posting blatant falsehoods. You have dragged my name all through mud with unsupported falsehoods. I barely know any of these other editors. But what appears to be just a common interest in motorcycles and in some way have incurred your wraft. You speak of people showing up here how did brianhe come here to speak badly of me he is your close personal friend is he not he came to pile on. And are you to imply the two of you don't vote stack. The behavior you have showed the threating the harassing the searching through my contribution to try to find something to throw in my face. Now the cursing its clear your anger is getting the better of you. The very things you claim others to be guilty of you yourself have committed. And I don't see you changing your behavior at all or even acknowledging it. You talk of compromise but your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you? What does not appear to be a falsehood is that it seems you are just trying to get every one that disagrees with you either blocked or just scared away. 72bikers (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be a compromise because the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered by a third editor (not me) who was trying to make peace. That is an open door for you to accept the olive branch so that everyone can move on. You, your pals Zachlita, Spacecowboy, and Skyring stonewalled a painless compromise. Why? Because you want to win more than anything.

It's a lie to keep repeating that your behavior is nothing but a "common interest in motorcycles". You've already admitted you've been tracking my edits. That's Wikihounding. Read the policy links I asked you repeatedly to read. I'm so tired of spelling this out again and again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I find it a little strange that you act so offended that I might have looked at your edit history and consider it to be "not cool" for me to edit something that I might have found on your edit history, but mere hours later you are posting here: User_talk:KrakatoaKatie#You_gave_me_a_.28very_short.29_editing_block I didn't notice anyone pinging you there, so I'm assuming that you followed someone there and decided to contribute? Isn't that exactly what you were complaining about other users doing? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. The kind of backhanded argument you're attempting now? We call that Wikilawyering. You're not here to build an encyclopedia; it's all battleground to you, and you're trying to score points. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I have never admitted to tracking you that is a all out lie. I simply don't care enough about you to stoop to such things. But you have just admitted to doing just that That's Wikihounding. Do you even read what you write? A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered were do you even come up with this stuff do you perceive if you state it is true and factual. Your close personal friend is not a third party just to let you know. You speak of peace and olive brank I propose it is you sir that think this is a battleground a war you must win. Why? Because you want to win more than anything. it's necessary to track their contributions Who made you the wiki police? Am I missing something here? You are guilty of every thing you have claimed others of uncivil,harassing,stalking and more. I am starting to think you argue just because you like to argue. Your not here to make a better Misplaced Pages. Your here to have word battles with people I am starting to think you get your kicks from it.72bikers (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, Did you ever consider that just perhaps you have brought scrutiny on yourself, with your editing style? Or does that only apply to editors who you are in dispute with?

Do you think it's me who is trying to score points? Who made this report? you

Who put my name in it, and dragged me into it? you

I don't want to be in this report, so please don't drag me into it (when it's a report on another user) accuse me of things, that you are doing yourself, and when it's pointed out, say that I'm trying to score points. This is laughable.

What is also laughable is that you made this report accusing another editor of personal attacks, and then posted this as an edit summary: "You are a fucking liar, Pete" - that is far more offensive, personal, disruptive, and indicative of someone using wikipedia as a battleground, than anything you have accused any other user of. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He is getting a pass on his openly stalking and threatening behavior. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here I would like to point out his only expertise is his understanding and ability to twist the rules. basically he can do whatever he wants there is no justice here. someone take this to the next step surely someone can serve up some justice. 72bikers (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I said what you quoted in bold on a completely different (albeit related) thread, so why mention it here? Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because as you have stated it is related. Posted here to see if someone would take it to some higher level were maybe justice can be served. His harassing uncivil stalking threatening and more behavior needs to be addressed. have you even read this thread? You propose that he gets a pass simple because you believe he brings something to the table and has been here for a long time. Were are these double standards written? I would like to read them. I suspect that his pass on his behavior has only in bolded him to act the way he does. All the while making unsupported claims of others misbehavior that he him self is guilty of. how is this just how does this make a better wikipedia. You are just cultivating a bully. 72bikers (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to be aware that having pages on a watchlist is not synonymous with stalking. This seems to be the basis of your argument. Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding of course that is not what I am talking about. Have you even read this When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributionsmr bratlands own words he has openly admitted to stalking. You are a (fucking) liar more of his own words personal attack. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland He has left unprovoked threating harassing messages on my talk page just because I did not share his views. He has plagued this conversation with false accusation of others that he himself is guilty of. he has had his close personal from come here and pile on when not even involved in the conversation. His repeated uncivil and harassing and more behavior should be dealt with. Are you impartial or a friend to dennis giving him a pass on his behavior is just cultivating a bully. Have you even read this or are you just turning a blind eye? 72bikers (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. Having pages on a watchlist, clicking the contribs button, etc are all legit actions on wikipedia.

I have doubts about Chesnaught555's comments on ANI, their neutrality, relevance and compliance with wikipedia rules.

When this civility/harassment report was started he stated I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC) against a user who has not made personal attacks, and has kept his discussions to article talk pages. However, in the report regarding Dennis Bratland telling a user you're a fucking liar he (as a non-admin) decided to take it upon himself to close the discussion. Nice double standards. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep AN/I on my watchlist, it is perfectly fine to do that sir. I can fully understand why he keeps pages about motorcycles on his watchlist too. If you were to see mine, you'd find I watch the pages of my personal interests too. That is not unacceptable behaviour at all. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded and BLP

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wants to include tabloid sources, including The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail on our article on the British National Party, a controversial right-wing political party. As the material concerns living people and these are square in the middle of the definition of "tabloid journalism" I would argue that WP:BLPSOURCES therefore applies here. Would someone else please take a look at the situation then consider reaching out to Snowded and explaining BLP to him? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Some claims from those sources are clearly simple statements of non-contentious fact which is fine - while some show "editorial positions" of the original source or the newspaper printing the claims, which falls outside proper usage.

Where the claims are clearly claims as to motivation etc., they should not be used, but a simple statement that Person A visited country B is not a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220565/BNP-change-whites-membership-rules-fall-foul-discrimination-laws.html is far too editorial in nature to pass muster IMO, while

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hope-not-hate-vote-for-equality-305140 is just a 404 in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334312/Anti-fascist-protestors-arrested-packed-London-buses-following-violent-clashes-BNP-outside-Parliament.html is neither better nor worse than the editorial HuffPo cite for the same claim.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1911033/Top-Euro-Nazi-Zoltan-Fuzessys-hate-site-run-from-terraced-house-in-Gravesend.html is directly violative of WP:BLP for sure, making clear claims of fact based on opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339568/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-visits-Syria-receiving-invite-President-Assad.html is used to make a claim based on its headline and not on what the article actually states in its body ("after being invited to take part in a fact-finding visit to the war-torn country by the regime of President Bashar Assad" is not the same as the claim "BNP leader Nick Griffin visits Syria after receiving invite from President Assad" used in the footnote which is the only apparent reason for using the DM as a cite) and so on.

In short - the problem is that sources are used for both allowable claims of fact, and disallowable statements of opinion not properly attributed as opinion. And, of course, the endemic problem of confusion as to the difference between headlines of articles and the contents of articles. I hope this is clear to all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad John has brought this here although he is misrepresenting the position someone. He deleted a whole load of material some weeks ago on the grounds that BLP policy does not permit the use of tabloid sources. In fact BLP forbids the use of tabloid journalism and per multiple discussions at WP:RS Tabloids are allowed for facts although with caution. No one disputes that broadsheets are better sources. At the time I sought clarification at the BLP notice board here rather than rise to bait of, shall we say, the over enthusiastic templating of my use page with warnings. That discussion also came to the conclusion that tabloids are not the same thing as tabloid journalism. John did not engage in that discussion other that to asset he was right. We've now come back to the issue again. Despite not having taking part in the discussion I raised at BLP he again issued a warning based on is particular interpretation of policy.

Now as far as I am concerned I am not wedded to the material in question and substantially agree with Collect's statement above. The issue here is proper clarification of policy. If WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of any tabloid journal as a source then it should clearly state as such. Tabloid journalism is not confined to the tabloids and neither is everything in a tabloid journal tabloid journalism. Not the Sun, but the Mirror and the Mail do have a reasonable reputation for news reporting. Something that has been established in discussions at WP:RS on several occasions. I posted again to BLP and put a link on RS earlier today to try and get this clarified rather than rushing to ANI but I did think about it.

The other issue which I just want to note is John's behaviour as an admin. If I have raised an issue for clarification on the BLP page and he (i) does not take part and (ii) most editors agree that not everything in a tabloid is tabloid journalism then he should not be slapping warning templates on my page but should be taking part in those discussions. It really isn't too much to ask. ----Snowded 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• If User:Snowded is truly "not wedded to the material in question", and also truly of the belief that the two edits here and here are reasonable ones, then there may be a WP:CIR issue involved. I invite an uninvolved admin to review these edits (which involve restoring information on living people referenced only to the worst of the gutter press) and issue a final warning with a view to blocking if anything like this is repeated in the future. If Snowded's belief is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. is somehow capable of allowing edits like these two (which restore the Sun source which even he accepts is not permitted) then he should not be editing here. --John (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• And, sorry, I meant to note that the content issue is moot now as User:Hillbillyholiday has very commendably re-removed the tabloid material and re-sourced that which can be; I would strongly request that a further restoration of the non-compliant material (or any such material on other articles) should be met with a block. --John (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• • So after the best part of ten years of editing here on a range of articles and raising an issue of policy clarification John's response is to say that I shouldn't be editing here? Further I am to be threatened with a block? Please, isn't there something somewhere about chilling effects? An uninvolved admin reviewing that material is a good idea - but it won't resolve the current conflict between John's assertion that no tabloid material is permitted and agreements at WP:RS which say they can be reliable sources. On that we need a community decision. Oh and the statement about my belief above is plain false the issue is what constitutes poor sourcing and on that WP:RS is at odds with John ----Snowded 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that John subsequently changed "Snowded's belief that" to "If Snowded's belief is that" for which I thank him. Making it a question not a statement is appreciated. The answer is that it is not. I am solely and simply seeking clarification of the conflict between WP:RS and the reading of WP:BLPSOURCES by John (which also conflicts with that by several other editors). The content issue is partly resolved by Hillbillyholiday edits. So if we can resolve the policy issue now it will prevent future conflict ----Snowded 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies for my typo the first time round. This is AN/I where user conduct issues requiring admin intervention are discussed. There is a parallel discussion at WT:BLP where the policy (which seems pretty clear to most people on matters like this one) can continue to be discussed. If you have agreed that you will desist from edit-warring violative and defamatory content into a BLP, then I would not ask for further admin intervention, unless this was to recur in the future. However, User:Zumoarirodoka may need a line in the sand drawn for them as they have restored material which nobody has tried to justify. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, current policy allows the use of Tabloids and most editors involve in the previous discussion agree with that. You really need to stop this aggressive labelling and issuing of threats to experienced editors who are trying to get an apparent conflict resolved. I could equally ask you to stop edit warring to remove material which is sourced per current policy on WP:RS and show some respect for WP:BRD. If you want to move the question to that board I'm fine with it. Maybe this time you will actually take part in the discussion, your behaviour is in question here as well you know. ----Snowded 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John, could you please at least tell me about the material which you believe is innapropriate for me to include on the British National Party article and talk with me either on the talk page or my user page, instead of bringing it up here first and issuing final warnings to me about disruptive editing (which I was definitely not intentionally doing) without any prior discussion whatsoever?

I'm not opposed to legitimate criticism as I am fully aware I am biased against the BNP (as with the majority of editors on that article) and I try to stick to WP:NPOV as much as I can, but please be civil about correcting me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) edited 16:25 UTC

There're two interesting question on behaviour which could be asked here.

1. If an experienced editor has raised a disputed interpretation for clarification at the appropriate policy forum, should an admin issue them with a block threat to support that Admin's position in the said dispute?
2. Should an admin who is aware that there is a dispute about policy, edit war to revert long standing material without first discussing the issue on the talk page of the article concerned?

Just a thought ----Snowded 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zumoarirodoka is continuing to edit war this material in against consensus after a warning. Block, please. --John (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @John: As soon as you mentioned the specifics, I removed the material; I have no objections to removing specific material, but it wasn't explained to me personally which parts were BLP violations. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. It seems there is only one user now who does not "get" this policy. They were honest enough to admit that they restored the Sun source to the BLP to make a . I asked at WT:BLP if there is anyone who thinks the non-compliant tabloid version was better than the version we have now, and this user (alone, obviously) still seems to think that using the Daily Mail to support negative material naming a living person is ok. I predict that if this aspect of user behaviour is not clarified, this user will continue to misunderstand BLP. I would like an uninvolved admin to look carefully at this and advise Snowded of our BLP policy. --John (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You really can't stop can you. WP:RS permits tabloid papers to be used as a reliable source on factual matters. BLP only forbids tabloid journalism. In all the discussions so far everyone has agreed that alternative sources are better if available. So your statement above about my preferring it is plain false. The issue is that you think you can revert perfectly good material just because it is linked to a Tabloid source and when you are challenged you issue block threats on people's talk pages while breaking WP:BRD. Given that you are an admin that is dubious behaviour at best. Try asking for better sourcing or even look for it before blind reverting. You could also discuss issues with other editors and generally assume good faith. The minute we first encountered each other on this I raised the matter for clarification on the BLP notice board which is what a responsible editor should do. In that discussion everyone (including me) said that other sources were preferable but that Tabloids could be used for factual matters. Your contribution to that debate was to tell everyone else they were wrong and you were right. I've opened it again with a the policy statement below given you didn't want it discussed here. Taking part in that discussion as a equal participant would be a better approach than demands here ----Snowded 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy question

To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?

• Some use: Reporting of statements and other factual matters should be allowed but no commentary, ideally alternative sources should be provided ----Snowded 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for this discussion, as stated above. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • OK I have shifted it intact to the BLP page. I trust you will contribute ----Snowded 16:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Its just about npov - User:Snowded hates the bnp and wants them and griffin portrayed as negatively as he can and he will use any rubbish opinionated link he can find to support that portrayal and will ignore all policies including wp:blp to achieve that end, simple really. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And absolutely correctly, I suppose. _Fortuna 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Misplaced Pages articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Misplaced Pages works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Concern that have been singled out by user:Poeticbent for harrassment.

A dispute over text in the article "Polish death camp" controversy, discussed here Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#Request_for_comments, resulted in a sockpuppet investigation being opened by the above user after I had reverted edits I considered OR, POV and without valid citations. I tried to communicate with the user in his talk page but with no response.

After making the edit, the above user added to the article talk page and a main page edit summary both informing me that I'm "not getting it" with link to WP:NOTGETTINGIT, e.g. and , which led me to believe that they were belittling my edits in an attempt to make me "go away" from the article. I feel this was uncivil behaviour, especially as it was public and extremely brusque.

A sockpuppet investigation was also started by the above user. The content of the talk section also includes "See also: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rapido" , this was also added as a talk summary to a main page edit '(Undid revision 698547331 by Rapido (talk) → see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rapido)'. I feel this was an unfair attempt to publicise the sockpuppet investigation and convince other users of my "guilt".

However when another user made a similar reversion as I did , they didn't find themselves with an opened sockpuppet investigation, but received a "barnstar of diplomacy" from Poeticbent, something of an amazing double standard. .

I therefore believe I have been unjustly singled out for harrassment by Poeticbent, with the text in the article's talk page and edit summary and the opened sockpuppet investigation being attempts to bully me away from the article, or to influence other users against me.

Rapido (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since by their own admission (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rapido) Rapido has been IP and registering the same article (ZX Spectrum) they are, in fact, violating the WP:SOCK policy. As the violations seem to be due to a lack of policy understanding the appropriate remedy would be for them to knock it off. Quick IP non controversial edits of articles one has not edited registered aren't likely to cause an issue, but the same article should not be edited both registered and unregistered. NE Ent 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, I have checked the WP:SOCK page before posting my concern on this page and it says "Editing while logged out - There is no policy against editing while logged out...' and the earlier policy mentions 'Editing logged out to mislead', i.e. logging out to edit pages to evade sanctions, however I have been performing the opposite: specifically logging in to be linked to my edits and avoiding the IP address potentially changing.

I am also concerned that the issue I raised here has not been touched upon at all, in fact you made no mention of the other party's conduct. Rapido (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at the SPI . We're dealing with some pretty bizarre behaviour by User:Poeticbent here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Civility Violation by Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

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

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise has responded to an editor's question on his talk page with "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself." in the edit history comments. Normally I would just ignore this as the rants of an immature editor, but this is an Administrator, and should be held to a higher standard. I don't want to discourage anyone who is willing to spend the effort to act as an Administrator, but I don't think we should tolerate this kind of abuse either. WP:Civility applies to everyone. I would recommend a warning or temporary de-admin of this Administrator. Hopefully with time he'll learn to develop an more mature attitude in dealing with other editors. (This Admin has ordered me not to discuss this matter further on his talk page, so that avenue of discussion has been shut down.) SimpsonDG (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you keep posting after being told that you were unwelcome on their talk page? HighInBC 01:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He did tell me to stop posting on his talk page, so I respected his wishes and have not posted anything further there. But this isn't about me. This about about Future Perfect treating another editor with abuse and disrespect. Can you defend his telling another editor to "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself"? How is that not a violation of WP:Civility? If you can explain why that should be acceptable and allowed Admin behavior, I'll withdraw my complaint. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You have 50 edits in the last two years and you suddenly reappear to make a badgering, tendentious post on a user's talk page, then run to ANI and demand they be desysopped when you don't like their response. Pardon me if I'm going to question whether or not you're here to build an encyclopedia or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, another attempt to turn this around and make it all about me. Sorry, but I'm not falling for it. This is about an Admin, Future Perfect, bullying another editor (not me) with abusive language: "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself". Since you're not attempting to explain why that should be allowed, I'm assuming that you have no defense for this. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not your place to restrict the content of the discussion. It's about whatever the editors decide it's about. And what's it to you anyway? It wasn't directed at you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well given his response on his talkpage of 'Fuck off troll' to StuRat, who is most definitely not an editor with 50 edits, what did you expect? Suggest dropping it, FPAS is habitually uncivil and has been for years, no one is going to do anything since the civility policies are dead in the water. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The only sensible response I've gotten yet. Yes, I suppose you're right. FPAS isn't likely to change his uncivil behavior, and from what I'm seeing here, no other administrators have any interest in enforcing civility policies -- they're just making me the problem for reporting the bullying in the first place, while they defend the bully. I'm dropping my complaint about FPAS. This just reminds me why I stopped editing WP some years ago: the admins are just a bunch of bullies, and you can't contribute to WP anymore without getting threats, bullying, and harassment. It's really a shame. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think it was uncivil and not ideal from an admin. If you can show it is part of a larger pattern it may be actionable. I think your generalizations about admins being a bunch of bullies unfairly paints a lot of people with a very large brush, and is a personal attack on hundreds of people. Perhaps you can stick to criticizing people one at a time with evidence instead of targeting whole groups. HighInBC 02:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're so full of it, HighInBC. (Did you not read FPAS's RfC from 2008? How much more of a long-term pattern of incivility were you looking for.) IHTS (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"If you can show it is part of a larger pattern it may be actionable." May be HighInBC? Why just maybe? If that is just maybe, I don't think that showing it is part of a larger pattern will change anything. Its quite easy for anybody to see it. FPAS does not refrain from violation of wp:civil even in the edit summaries. Here are some examples (stars are mine, I did not want to quote the whole f word):

• unbefu**ingleavable.
• oh for fu**'s sake, get your facts straight, will you
• eighteen. fu*****. days.
• rv fu***ng hypocrite
• Oh I'm so fu**ing sick of you all.
• fu** off, idiot.

Disclosure: FPAS and me were involved in many disputes, most often not on the same side.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between "may be" and "maybe". If I say you "may go the the washroom" I am not disputing the legitimacy of you going to the washroom. When I say it may be actionable I am saying that action may be taken. HighInBC 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Constantly troll and vandal and sock hunting is never-ending, thankless work, and I've been getting the impression recently that some of our Admins are burning out lately as a result. Admins shouldn't be afraid of taking wikibreaks when it gets to that point. Now, that said, while the current situation is unfortunate, FP@S is not an Admin who should be at the top of our list of Admins to haul before ArbCom. Neither is Nakon. I suggest people look for examples of Admins who have been long-term conduct problems on that score... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much this. While this isn't as egregious as an indef block with talk page removal, it's still not becoming of an administrator. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. --Tarage (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is trolling by IPs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And that somehow makes incivility okay? Don't change the subject Bugs. --Tarage (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The subject is whatever the editors decide it is. And the alleged incivility is nothing compared to the relentless, malicious trolling by IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there. And seeing what FPAS has just done, I fully expect them to not be an admin any longer. Not acceptable in the slightest. They need a break now before they do any more damage. --Tarage (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP-hoppers are the ones doing the damage. Future Perfect has not done any damage, except to the IP-hopping trolls, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Except for the other admin he banned and talk page revoked for reverting edits on his own talk page. Stop trying to defend this bullshit temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is more of a personal attack on Future Perfect than what he said to StuRat. Who, by the way, had his talk page unprotected two weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Future Perfect assumed that StuRat was defending the banned user, related to them, or was just having a bad day. It's clear however that StuRat was innocuously trying to explain themselves following Future Perfect's passive aggressive edit summary (for an appropriate edit), and the response, "Fuck off you troll," is a mistake. An apology for the misunderstanding is all that's needed - not warnings, etc. -Darouet (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Above SimpsonDG states he "stopped editing WP some years ago". However he apparently still likes to add fuel to the fire occassionally. The reference desks are run mostly by people who like to talk—the more excitement the better—and there is a very persistent troll who uses that situation to spread discord. When people revert the troll, "good faith" editors restore the posts and spread further discord by complaining on user talk pages with patently absurd statements such as in the section in question. To see how absurd the statement is, consider:
  • 22 December 2015 Thanks, but I don't want anon's blocked from commenting on my talk page, just because a blocked user has done so repeatedly.
  • 23 December 2015 Please unprotect my talk page
• It may be fine for the ref desks to run a forum, but the community needs to strongly tell the liberty users that WP:NOTFORUM is policy—if you stick to providing referenced answers for legitimate questions no one will be uncivil. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq has hit the nail on the head here. If you push someone into a corner with your troll-ish behavior, don't come complaining to ANI if he hands out butthurt. Be a grownup and grow a thick hide for God's sake. Or you can stop the troll-ish behavior. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found it rather outrageous that FPAS would protect my talk page because of what somebody I don't know wrote on it, then refuse to unprotect it when I asked him to do so. This is my talk page after all, not his, and I should be the one to decide if it's protected. I complained to others and was able to get my talk page unprotected. Maybe that explains the massive chip on his shoulder that resulted in that extreme incivility in an unrelated matter. Of course, if Admins aren't desysoped for such behavior, you can expect far more of it in the future. I imagine such behavior from a user, towards an Admin, would get them blocked. So, apparently the rule is "Admins are allowed to be abusive to users, but users are not allowed to be abusive to Admins". StuRat (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect has been active smacking down trolling IP's, and 223.176.5.129 is probably on that list, so he would of course love to see a diligent troll-smacker stopped. As for StuRat, he has been a target of that IP troll many times, and needs to understand that banned users are not allowed to edit. He also needs to know that he does not "own" his user page. Furthermore, some of the trolling on StuRat's talk page has been directed at me. I object to having such material on Stu's talk page. And if he won't take any action about it, someone else has to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• One certainly does not own their talk page. They can't choose to use it as a forum, they can't allow banned users to edit there. Misplaced Pages has a real troll problem and people who enable them are really making the situation worse. HighInBC 05:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:HighInBC can you just close this topic please as per WP:DENY. It is quite clear that this is just a trollish topic and the more we feed it, the more time we waste. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• StuRat proves yet again to be completely clueless about the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Since 12 March 2015, StuRat has made 5000 edits. Of those, 4802 were to ref desk pages or ref desk talk. Another 76 are to user talk. About 75 of StuRat's last 5000 edits were to articles. FreeatlastChitchat is correct: the longer festivals like this continue, the more trolling will occur. However, now we are here, it may be appropriate to consider a community restriction that StuRat should not revert the removal of any talk page or reference desk comment, and should not question the reverter on their talk. If a review of a revert is considered necessary, raise the matter at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, amazing. Is there something wrong with spending most of my time on the Ref Desk ? I generally avoid doing anything more than small copy edits on Misplaced Pages proper, because most of the time any major additions or changes just get reverted, so it's a waste of my time. And I've noticed the pattern of any complaint against an Admin meeting with immediate retribution. We need a whistleblower law here. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not just reply here saying something like "I will not revert the removal of comments and will not question those reverts other than at WP:AN"? Do you acknowledge that a fair bit of drama has occurred regarding what appears to be trolling at the ref desks? Do you want to continue opposing the removal of material that good-faith editors consider to be trolling? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not StuRat that's reverting-back the troll's stuff - it's the troll himself. That's why the page was semi'd, because StuRat didn't care what the troll did. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        • In general I think you are right. However, 18:50 shows an IP adding comments with an obviously trolling edit summary, and 18:51 shows Elockid removing it, and 18:53 shows StuRat reverting the removal. Everyone knows that trolls thrive on excitement, but some contributors to the ref desks regard that as someone else's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It's a mystery why StuRat would do that, and he shouldn't have. But as long as the page stays semi'd, the problem should stay away. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problem was that I didn't recognize Elockid as an Admin, the material he deleted didn't obviously appear to be trolling, and he gave no explanation for the deletion in the edit summary. As an unexplained mass deletion, I thought it was vandalism. I still don't see requiring that an edit summary be included for such a deletion to be an unreasonable request. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You might think it's not unreasonable (and I might even agree with you), but on Misplaced Pages today, you're wrong. When someone clicks the Undo button, they get a nonspecific edit summary. No guideline requires them to fill it in with a more specific one. Many/most editors click the "OK" button without filling in a more specific one, and in general no one thinks less of them for doing so.

When you're fighting vandalism, it is your responsibility to make sure it really is vandalism before you revert it (you don't depend on the vandal to tell you it was/wasn't.) And, for better or worse, when you're reviewing the action of a vandal-fighter, the situation is analogous: it is your responsibility to determine that the reverted vandalism was or wasn't vandalism before calling the reverter on it; you don't depend on the reverter to tell you so. In general, you're supposed to assume good faith on the part of the vandal-reverter.

(What if the alleged vandal-reverter is actually a vandal, cloaking his vandalism in the guise of antivandalism? That's a problem, to be sure, but again, it has to be your job to figure it out, you can't depend on the might-be-antivandal to tell you so.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• What we actually need is this topic to be closed with the remedy proposed by Johnuniq enacted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a solution to the wrong problem. The page needs to be kept semi'd, and that should continue to fix the problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Guys, excuse me, but I think "F*ck off" and "Go f*ck yourself" are not exactly civil, huh? To be honest, I don't think that this should be given any leeway. I agree, that StuRat might not be particularly constructive but if the elected reps behave in such a manner, it's a shame for the whole community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  We know that fuck off is not civil. The problem, however, concerns what to do about the long-term trolling at the ref desks, and the ref desk contributors who inflame that situation, and who post comments on user talk pages that are indistinguishable from trolling. Or do you think that so long as no bad words are used, everything is ok? Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  No thats what you would *like* the problem to be about to excuse FPaS' incivility. Which is why my advice above was to drop it, since no one is going to do anything about an admin who calls an editor in good standing a troll and tells them to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  This thread is to discuss FPAS' incivility and I've given my opinion on exactly that. You (Johnuniq) on the other hand are talking about something (diverting our attention) which doesn't justify his actions at all. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  A thread here is not restricted to the question raised in its title. And its curious that the OP is so concerned about an "incivility" not directed at him. That discussion should be between Future Perfect and StuRat. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Definitely. Going around talking about your own agenda, (even if related but not about the topic) however is unhelpful. Hope I could help. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There's just no excuse for such incivilities from an admin, whose behavior is expected to be "at a higher standard" acc. Jimbo Wales. In my view those type of profane responses should merit immediate desysop. (The editor who writes profane responses like that has to not only compose them, but deliberately hit "Enter" on their keyboard. Admins are expected to simply have more discipline & restraint than that, no matter what they fucking "feel". Or they simply are not fit to be admins, or to retain their adminship. Period. ) IHTS (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. And let's get something straight: Profanity laden posts like FPAS made are expressly prohibited from admins, no matter fucking what. (Not something "not ideal". Not something "not condoned". Not something "not helpful". Not something "he/she is human". ) IHTS (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  You should save your outrage for the IP trolls. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but trolls are trolls. Why some 'special kind of outrage for the IPs, may I ask? Remember, all trolls are humans, just like the people editing on IP addresses. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Pretty obviously because the relevant trolls in this debate are those at the desks, and those are purely IPs. _Fortuna 13:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  (ec)That's not quite true. Registered users can be indef'd. IP's are only given short blocks. And in the case of the troll in question, he's an IP-hopper. That's what's so vexing about IP trolls - and the fact that Misplaced Pages maintains this insane policy of allowing non-registered users to edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  An irrelevant response, Bugs. (Essentially anyone on planet Earth w/ a keyboard can be an IP troll and post profanities. There is no stopping that unless IPs are not allowed to edit, or a sophisticated profanity filter is developed & implemented. Since neither of those are in the cards, your post is just deflective. And so a fair Q is why.) IHTS (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  It's totally relevant. Blocking an admin who's fighting trolls does nothing except to aid and abet the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, and we should totally support him because he's fighting them with some beautiful "F*ck you"s and "Go f*ck yourself"s. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Why don't you say what you really mean Bugs?: You agree that admins are allowed the kind of profanity exhibited by FPAS. (Fine. Then let's hear you also say "admins at a higher standard" does not apply on the WP. ) IHTS (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Are people really arguing that telling a troll to fuck off is a problem? It isn't. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  And that is the kind of attitude that causes the problem. First off, dealing trolls with abusive language shows exactly what kind of a person you are. Second, if you really believe they are trolls, you're just feeding them by saying that. StuRat, has exhibited feelings and an attitude to solve this problem, look at FPAS' talk page to see the contrast in the tone and content of their replies. Also, to quote FPAS, SimpsonDG is a "butthurt malcontent". Give this man a medal for creativity, maybe? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  It's fucking inexcusable behavior from admin period, whether reg editor, IP, or fucking monkey. IHTS (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Trolls deserve all they get, provided that they are indeed trolls (ie: it isn't someone just using the term almost randomly, as the likes of Smallbones tend to do from time to time). I really do not see why admins should have to patronise with waffle like "please find yourself another hobby": give 'em both barrels. We don't have to sugarcoat things, no matter how much a few poor dears might dislike it. You want a profanity-free environment then go live on some other planet. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It was obvious you'd say that, seeing Special:Diff/699166699. Synonimizing an user with the devil, saying "Piss off" to an user who is genuinely trying to understand Misplaced Pages's policies. Good job. At this point, you're a half-baked version of what FPAS is, if you want to be proud of it, that's your choice. Also, some curt language, you got there, buddy. Please have the decency to be polite and get rid of that attitude. You have no special authority here and if we have to sugarcoat things to maintain civility, so be it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  You may be forgiven because of the deliberate obfuscating going on above, but FPaS told StuRat (not a troll) to 'fuck off troll'. I assume from the interaction because he didnt feel like answering questions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  That is so stupid Sitush, IP trolls s/ simply be dealt w/ and ignored. Admins at a minimum can & are expected to conduct themselves minus profanity. (They are admins for Christ's sake; their behavior is expected to be at a minimum decor and profanity is easily avoidable by ADMINS. ) IHTS (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  IP troll/registered troll - what's the difference? A troll is a troll. Profanity is no more easily avoidable by admins than it is by, erm, you (or me, on occasion). Only in death, you may have a point. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There is a deeper argument here, viz the management of the ref desks, and attempting to reduce the issue down to the behaviour one individual (Admin or nay) is reactionary. (Sory- that should of course read fucking reactionary.) _Fortuna 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There may be multiple issues, and until you define "management of the ref desk", how is anyone able to decide you are right that it is "deeper"? (Hypocrisy re "admin conduct at a higher standard" is pretty fundamental-enough for me to quality as deep .) IHTS (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Punishing FPaS here would be tantamount to issuing a carte blanche to trolls, socks and vandals to target specific editors they dont like, goad and troll them into using a four letter word and then run to ANI to get the. The degree of civility one can expect from others depends on the situation, including one's own conduct. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I fully agree with ·maunus. Ok, so Future Perfect at Sunrise was goaded. I'm not defending the language, but FPaS is still one of the best admins around. It is very very easy for trolls to target users they dislike, perhaps using several accounts, and just wait for the target to have enough of it. That's the real problem, not that FPaS got a bit too frustrated. Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Closure reverted

Closing summary:

• Even if justifiably frustrated, Future Perfect at Sunrise should not use quite such strong language in edit summaries.
• As a refdesk regular, StuRat should be aware of ongoing IP vandalism patterns, and/or should AGF when encountering reverts of same.
• SimpsonDG should find something more important to complain about.

(In other words, there is plenty of blame here to go around.)

• The protection status of StuRat's talk page is a separate issue which should be discussed elswhere.
• The appropriate management tactics to use on the refdesks in response to trolls and vandals is an ongoing issue which is absolutely being discussed elsewhere.

—Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)}}

I definitely don't think that FPAS belongs here with such conduct. Furthermore, I don't see why you closed it as there were no remedies. A pretty hasty close for an incomplete discussion which hasn't led to the resolution of the problem. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good point. Nobody with such long-term pattern of uncivil conduct belongs here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the two solutions presented are either "FPAS should not be an admin" or "FPAS is justified in cursing out editors who make mistakes." This is such a simple situation: FPAS was aggravated while fighting trolls, StuRat mistakenly impeded them called him out on a passive aggressive edit summary, and FPAS swore at StuRat. Both of them should apologize and everyone should move on with their lives. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that StuRat wasn't "mistakenly" impeding the cleanup; he was doing so knowingly and deliberately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, you would still look like a bigger person by apologizing for your choice of words. It doesn't hurt, I've done it several times.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how do you know this? It looked to me like they'd made a mistake they were upset at your edit summary, and I don't understand why StuRat would rack up 5,000 edits on Help Desk in order to troll. Do you both have a history, or is there something obvious I'm missing? -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is, unfortunately, a little late for that now as FPAS just blocked TheRamblingMan. So, everyone get their popcorn ready.... Resolute 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Eh. The only one possible "uncivil" edit summary was made on his own talk page, as a response to a particularly stupid question/trolling. Nothing to see here. Get a life. Grow up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just close this politely disguised harassment. It's being used as a venue for anyone who's ever had a run in with FPAS to conduct a WITCHHUNT. My apologies to other experienced Wikipedians speaking up here, and with whom I've worked collaboratively, but I know you have personal issues with him. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe your motives to be anything but wanting to see him tossed like a caber. Don't pretend you don't stand to benefit because he's prevented you from diddling content per your own POV. Love you all as I do, this entire thread reads as a latch-on to get him for something... anything. Okay, that's my 2¢. I just thought it would be a refreshing change to approach things honestly. We're all terribly proficient at painting our comments with a veneer of Misplaced Pages professionalism. Hooray for us, but bollocks to blatant opportunism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Honest approach does not mean that FPAS's long-term pattern of uncivil conduct should be tolerated. On the contrary. No appeal to motive can change this simple fact. It does not make much sense either. Experienced wikipedians know better than to confront FPAS anywhere at wikipedia. Those who do, certainly don't do it because of the blatant opportunism. Otherwise they would remain silent. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which experienced Wikipedians are afraid to 'confront FPAS' (I'm taking the liberty of substituting 'know better' for what you're implying)? Why do you chose the descriptor 'confrontation'? I've certainly disagreed with FPAS in the past. I'm trying to wrap my head around why you would want to 'confront' any editor or admin unless they were genuinely flouting policy and guidelines. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to pull up a couple of examples of confrontations you, personally, have had with him in order that we all have a chance to evaluate your behaviour and FPAS's behaviour in context. I'm not interested in a diff or two that may be presented to your own advantage, but beginning with an actual content change and the ensuing exchange over it by both of you. Actually, truth be told, I've been involved in and observed a couple of these myself and would prefer to be discrete by not bringing them up here. That's not to say that we don't all disagree at some point or another, nor that we don't make bad judgement calls, but that the overall premise of being HERE is the predominant one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: It's clear that some have had past run-ins with FPAS, but I haven't seen that for StuRat (it may be true), and for my own part I have only ever been impressed by them (I recently agreed with them strongly at Talk:Bijeljina massacre). Unless it can be convincingly argued that StuRat was trolling, FPAS just needs to be more civil. Asking as much is not an indictment of their adminship, and in my view is on the contrary an expression of confidence in them. -Darouet (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I disagree that it is 'an expression of confidence'. I also disagree with the re-opening of the thread. Forcing gestures of remorse is a futile punitive exercise, and I have sincere doubts as to whether it actually changes the dynamics between Wikipedians who are under pressure and will have moments when they can go off like a tinderbox as either the person who felt indignated, or the other who felt put upon (which is what I believe to have happened here). I think we all get caught up in a sense to having to project an image for inexperienced editors and potential editors that justice is meted out to all, despite their experience and rank. The only thing being accomplished is extending a venue for the airing of dirty laundry. Kill off the thread. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If the OP was seeking removal of FPAS' bit, then this whole discussion is moot. A complaint filed at ANI, no matter how long it gets, will not result in removal of an admin's tools. That can only be done by filing a case with the arbitration committee. So, either this discussion is really about venting about behavior some editors find unacceptable or it is about behavior at the Ref Desks but demanding that FPAS' admin status be taken away will lead to ZERO action. That is not because editors find his behavior to be unproblematic. It's just that, unless he voluntarily resigns, no one here can take it away, no matter what good or bad reasons are put forth.

This seems to happen on a regular basis on ANI, that an editor asks for an admin to be desysoped which involves a lengthy debate with no resolution because there is nothing here like a vote of no confidence to remove an admin's status. You're bringing your complaint to the wrong forum. If you believe an admin should be desysoped, make your case at arbitration. Liz 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(Not a direct reply to Liz235) Maybe, if FPAS could be humble and just apologize for the multiple incidents where he'd failed to maintain civility, it'd all be over by now. Moreover, people have adopted an attitude where they consider abusive language to be standard for interacting with a troll (and again, StuRat is not the troll). I'm pretty surprised I'm gonna have to say this - you're too stupid to understand or blindly supportive of FPAS because of his other (good) actions, which should in no way undermine his conduct problems. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Yet again, FPAS has outdone himself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocking TRM was not really appropriate, but the IP troll (now blocked) was making personal attacks on someone other than TRM himself, and that kind of thing is routinely removed by admins. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha, this close was so obvious. Almost all participants had previous interactions with FPAS and were biased towards/against him anyway (silent observation). The two arguments presented were: "He was pissed off, it's fine." and "Nothing justifies what he said. Especially, that he's done it before too." Honestly, I'd like to see this acted upon and further discussion on this issue would help (the thread was not stale and had active discussion while it lasted), but I'm not going to contest a close for the second time. If any editor has actively documented FPAS' deteriorating conduct (I say that because I doubt we elected him as sysop with this kind of behaviour), he/she should definitely give it a shot at DRAMACOM. Very respectfully. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me

I often peruse the reference desk to get some advice on how to perform organic chemistry reactions in the lab. They aren't homework questions, particularly as I have a bachelors' in biochemistry and I am pursuing these reactions on an amateur basis. User:Medeis puzzlingly keeps accusing me of using the reference desk to answer "homework questions" and "professional advice". As far as I know, the restriction on professional advice is for legal advice, medical advice, financial investing advice, the kind of advice you would actually hire a professional consultant for, rather than restrictions on advanced organic chemistry because the questions are advanced or practical in scope. He has made these accusations against me on this basis several times, making personal attacks, and the latest action involves removing a legitimate question outright. Medeis sent me a "final warning" a few days ago on my talk page, threatening to get me "indefinitely blocked" as a sockpuppet, or saying he would report me to ANI. I thought I would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also until two minutes ago, until I further glanced up on the talk pages, I actually had no idea that User:Medeis has been topic-banned from the Reference Desk before. Could I ask for some advice or intervention on the matter, seeing as it is not his first time harassing other users on the Reference Desk? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Medeis in many area and some of their accusations seem IMO careless at times. E.g. the homework questions accusation already seemed bizzare as it never seemed like Yanping Nora Soong (YNS) was asking questions relating what would be considered "homework".

However it has became increasingly clear that YNS is asking questions relating to potentially dangerous chemistry work they apparently plan to try at home, in an effort to produce drugs for self medication. See in particular Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 January 4#Ground glass joints with 2.5 bar pressure relief valve?. While I have some sympathies for the situation YNS finds themselves in, I'm fairly sure from the comments I've seen that I'm not the only one incredibly uncomfortable with this line of question. I'm not sure if Medeis's unilateral deletion was the best move (particularly since for a variety of reasons, Medeis's deletions tend to cause controversy) but in this particular instance it's difficult to fault it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the sock issue, while it appears to be true Yanping Nora Soong has used other accounts in the past, AFAIK these account were basically in good standing perhaps with some people suggesting they were asking a little too many questions and a few other issues which seem irrelevant to the current situation. While there may be some similarites of current with previous behaviour, considering the length of time and the fact there was never AFAIK any formal warning or restriction, I do not believe there is a credible case for sockpuppetry (i.e. misuse of multiple account such as avoiding scrunity). Particularly since it should be fairly obvious why YNS may not want to link their current account with previous accounts from what they've disclosed on their user page. If Medeis still feels there is an issue, they should approach arbcom about this to avoid WP:OUTING and other concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a grave issue. YNS shouldn't be doing what she's trying to do. It could have really devastating consequences. Although, Medeis has violated his sanction (and also given a bad rationale), I think the real issue at hand is that YNS is attempting to prepare unknown medications for herself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been psychiatrically hospitalized over thirty times, I actually have been through over twenty to thirty different medications in the last four years (I've lost count), I've even had electroconvulsive therapy (which they won't give me anymore since my diagnosis was formally changed from MDD / bipolar spectrum disorder to complex PTSD and dissociative disorder NOS). I have attempted suicide several times in severely dissociated or dysphoric states (not a threat by any means, just saying how severe my disorder is). Bear in mind, there are currently no approved medications for the treatment of PTSD. Experimental treatments are risky, but untreated chronic suicidality and dissociation are even more so. Plus, targeting NMDA receptors and sigma receptors are really promising lines of treatment.

I am also not doing anything illegal (self-medication is a human right) and I'm actually only asking for organic chemistry advice, not medical advice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AFAIK Medeis is under no active sanction relating to the RD or removals. (I think none point blank.) The topic ban mentioned above happened 2 years ago but was quickly vacated as lacking consensus (i.e. it's considered to have never happened). Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked up some threads in ANI and it seems there's lots featuring him. I did find the thread containing the community sanction but not the one which overturned that outcome. I simply took YNS' word for it (I still don't know). Now, Medeis might not have a bad conduct but he certainly is a problem user. I'd like to see links to his hounding and personal attacks (if any) before I comment further (not that my comments matter). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a different named user asked the same question just a few days ago, and it was discussed ad nauseam at the ref desk talk page. In short, the ban was lifted 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Self-medication is not a human right, but it's just assumed to be one (just like self-euthanizing is not one but often supposed to be). Now, I'm no chemistry guy but as far as Wnt said on the Reference Desk, do not try it at home, you don't know what products your reaction might yield, hell, you could find the next big drug but there's no surety. Just saying, the consequences are too great. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not currently have any rule or guideline prohibiting the asking of "dangerous" questions. As always, the correct response upon observing a question which one would be uncomfortable answering is to ignore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how much social responsibility one feels. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen Medeis allege "homework" a few times lately in situations where I think it plainly was not. Now the Reference Desk may have a policy about homework questions, but it's important that we not let the policy be gamed in such a way that, if a person wanted to, he or she could levy a false "homework" accusation against any question and then expect the merits of the question to be debated as if it it were an issue. While I am definitely not fond of chemistry under pressure, I must emphasize the importance of keeping an open door for people to ask such questions. If we happen to talk someone out of trying something risky, this is a very good thing; it is a special case though of the general rule that if we can share useful information, we make people more informed and more informed people will do better, safer chemistry. Though I should note that Soong is actually a much better chemist than I am, which is why the suggestion of using improper vessels under pressure seemed so out of place! (It's a pity our Document Object Model doesn't allow better possibilities for citizen-scientists to embed real-time lab notebooks and coordinate their research through Misplaced Pages... but I digress)

Anyway, the ANI take-home here should be (a) the question isn't up for debate, (b) Medeis should knock off with the bogus homework allegations - whether you call them assuming bad faith, personal attack or whatever, they're not relevant or productive. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist but I've worked in an art foundry for over twenty years where we do all types of pressure casting and molding and I can't express to YNS enough how devastating the catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel can be. People don't realize how powerful even 10psi can be depending on the failure let alone truly high pressure systems. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Failures that would be fatal if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With chemical reactions you can have the production of gases spiral out of control incredibly quickly with no chance to intercede. Then you're talking the potential for glass shrapnel and the chemicals spraying everywhere. Capeo (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the intention. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was good advice. I guess I didn't think of 1.4 atm (gauge pressure; 2.4 atm absolute) as potentially being catastrophic. After all, 1.4 atm * 100 mL = 14 joules. The K.E. of a typical bullet is >500J (in hunting, ~>2500 J -- seeing from Muzzle energy#Legal_requirements_on_muzzle_energy), but an airsoft gun produces an output more on the order of 7.5J, and no one thinks of those things as lethal. My other consideration is that a a litre of water freezing into ice exerts wayyy more pressure on a tight container -- but I guess it doesn't do that explosively. But, after the heads-up, I ordered a specially-designed pressure vessel rated at 10 atm (tested at 15 atm) instead. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, 1.4 atm = 1.4 * 101325 Pa = 141855 kg m-1 s-2. Multiply by 100 cm3 = 1E-4 m3 = 14 joules... that seems to check out. Also, on looking it up just now I should admit that I had a misconception in my mind -- it might actually be possible to use X-rays to find slivers of glass in someone's eye and avoid prospecting for it with forceps, though borosilicate is more difficult than soda lime glass. Even so, I'm not enthusiastic about exploding glassware, even before we get into the toxicity/flammability of whatever is in it. And buying a stronger container just seems like doubling down on the risk to me. You weren't very clear on whether you had any sort of fume hood or blast shield set up at all, which was one of the reasons for concern. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to refrain from answering at this point at length. But I asked YNS whether her questions were homework questions for the simple reason that I did such syntheses in Organic Chem Lab to get my bachelor's degree; i.e., as homework. If it wasn't homework, it was a request for professional advice, both of which the Ref Desk disallows.

Based on YNS's talk page and contribution history, I think it is clear this user has a very long history soapboxing and of resorting to ANI, rather than editting mainspace. Her recent attacks on User:Snow Rise as a patriarchical cisnormative heterosexist (I paraphrase) started by a third person show a focus on using WP as a homepage and forum, rather than an encyclopedia. Likewise there's the request for speculation about how to get executed for a capital crime where no capital punishment exists, which degenerated into a discussion of assisted suicide show a wide divergence from the project's goals.

As a queer myself I can see the temptation to "speak out", but WP is defined as WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think YNS has ever once asked for a reference at the ref desk. The sole problem I see on my account is that I did not notify YNS yesterday when I reverted her latest WP:NOTHOWTO question. But she has never engaged with me, except to revert a warning of mine on her talkpage to follow the guidelines with a revert and the edit summary "LOLZ".

I have nothing against this user, have not pursued her across mainspace, and suggest this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really attacky about deeming someone a member of the patriarchy; most cis males who aren't feminists are by default, members of the patriarchy**, and I wasn't trying to make an attack. I was simply pointing out to him that, "your viewpoint is convenient for you to have, but not convenient for people who belong to more disadvantaged groups". Anyway, the whole issue sprung up up around what it meant for a doctor to make an "error" while sexing a baby, and it turned out we misinterpreted each other to begin with, and I don't think the discussion is antithetical to the project or to the reference desk when it makes evaluate more clearly what sex and gender mean. I wasn't even trying to have a debate, I was simply responding to what seemed like an unintentional microaggression. As Wnt put it succinctly : I've noticed most methods of classifying people that seem convenient to me eventually seem annoying to someone being classified.

**from the lead from our article on patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property..."

Also what's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about seeking the death penalty when you've been imprisoned for life? It wasn't a request for legal advice -- I've never been in prison and do not think I ever might be, certainly not for life (tho if I were black I could not say this with as much certainty), it was more of a burning curiosity especially as I kind of saw it as a deep injustice to be imprisoned for life but not to be allowed the option to die. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By Misplaced Pages's standard, yes, "deeming someone" in that matter is indeed a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

YNS, Please simply read the Ref Desk guildelines at the top of the RD pages, as well as Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer:

Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

And abide by them without interposing yourself in discussions where people innocently use terms such as "transgender" by attempting to shame them. I am certainly on no vendetta against you, and did not file an ANI, or a complaint at the talk page. You may find that engaging with people who've been openly queer since the early 80's, or simply other editors who don't start from the same premises as you, to be informative. And I do still maintain you should only ask for references, and not how-to questions, on how to synthesize bioactive substances. You are looking at matters that require hoods, vents, wash-stations, and so forth by law. We're simply not qualified, and I can quote plenty of other editors who've told you the same thing, if you insist. Please ping me here for further attention if needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOTHOWTO would also be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: It looks like there you started discussing the "cishet patriarchy" impersonally, but got drawn into what seemed like more direct argument. I don't want to confuse personal political opinion with personal attack. Nonetheless, be very careful about the "deeming people", i.e. making or appearing to make ad hominem statements or assumptions about other users. I know there's a rigged game here, that often people use policy as a way to attack people personally and then if they gripe back they get slammed; so don't let yourself become a victim of it. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO AFAIK applies to article space. It doesn't apply to the Reference Desk. I'm also not asking for professional advice -- if I had more chemist friends I spoke to on a regular basis, I'd be asking them in a non-professional capacity. I don't think you also know the difference between "transgender" (a term I identify with) and transgendered (a misuse at best, a slur at worst). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP has made 336 edits to Misplaced Pages in about 4 1/2 months. Of these, only 74 were to articles, while a whopping 125 (37.2%) were to Misplaced Pages space. Edits to their own user page and to the photographs they uploaded account for another 69. To be frank, YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, but for reasons of their own. However valid those reasons are to themselves, personally, it is not what we are here for. I very strongly urge YNS to refocus their efforts into editing articles and otherwise contributing to the project in a positive way, as I am afraid that the failure to do so will otherwise eventually end up in a sanction. That's not something that's desirable: clearly YNS has much to offer to the project, but we're not here for any other purpose than to help improve an online encyclopedia, and if they cannot put the vast majority of their energy into doing that, then there is no place for them here. That would be regrettable. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I may, under the circumstances. I just want to point out YNS that they really have no idea whether I am male or female or indeed whether I am cis, and they very well might never know, since one of the most compelling facets of Misplaced Pages is that participation is not predicated on who you are, but what you bring to the table as a contributor. I've always found that aspect of Misplaced Pages to be virtually unique in my personal experiences. However, I will state unequivocally that I am a feminist and consider it a defining feature of my life and general morale outlook. And I very much take offense to YNS's unfounded and repetitive accusations and presumptions about myself (and Graeme), which, at this point, I very much consider to have passed into the territory of WP:personal attacks, made as a part of a massive WP:SOAPBOX effort to divert discussions into territories they wish to zealously engage on. In an effort to create one or more foil for their stances, they have made numerous assumptions about the character and beliefs of others (myself primarily) which are not in evidence anywhere in the discussion and from which they will not be dissuaded in asserting. I like to think I have skin about as thick as any editor, but I admit, my patience begins to wear thin for being essentially called a bigot on no more basis than that it provides a convenient rhetorical argument for the insinuating party. I urge anyone who has questions about how tortured their logic is in reaching these conclusions to read the thread in question. Snow 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perspective or background of the contributor does matter somewhat (in certain cases), see Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias.

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia? I'm a photographer to begin with, so I find this sentiment puzzling. I actually didn't wish to soapbox at all. Graeme simply mentioned a hypothetical situation of a doctor "being incorrect" in the matter of sexing a baby, and this whole notion of "correctness" with regards to assessing a baby's sex (or correcting their sex) is actually a cause of a lot of suffering. This is not just personal opinion -- actually there are entire communities of individuals whose quality of life has been diminished because of the whole notion of whether a baby's sex is correct/incorrect.

I didn't call anyone a bigot, I am unaware of when unfeminist became a slur. If for you, "transgender'ed is not a slur, then neither is "unfeminist". Honestly -- I'm not trying to be a smartass -- but the whole idea of "sex is biological but gender is constructed," though historically important, has become frequently challenged. In fact, these challenges are well-sourced. See Sex and gender distinction#Criticism of the "sex_difference" vs. "gender difference" distinction. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for the sake of the flying spaghetti monster, I have never said that the word "transgender" was a slur. I am transgender.

You've misread WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS (or not read it at all): it doesn't give you free license to speculate about another user's identity, motives, or beliefs. It concerns only our content and how we apply the sources to determine the shape that content will take. It does not concern our contributors at all, except insofar as it informs how they should approach article content. I'll leave it to others to read that thread and come to their own conclusions about what you were implying about my beliefs and the leaps in logic you made to do so. As far as I am concerned, painting me as an "unsympathetic cisnormative oppressor" and the various other terms you've used, ad nauseum, are quite inflammatory, especially in light of my repeated efforts to get you to stop speculating about what manner of person I am, off-wiki. You've stopped now and that's good enough for me to assume it is a turning point in your involvement there (for which I am grateful) but you do need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies on arguing the point, not the user, if you want to get on civilly here. Snow 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how this discussion actually influenced article content, as opposed to a Reference Desk answer, and secondly, I apologize if you actually aren't cis. However, it seemed reasonable to assume a cisgender background based on rather absolutist** arguments you were making (**I don't think it's out of line to call this so?) -- that there are only two human sexes, and that all humans can be categorized or assigned membership to only one of them. Most trans or nonbinary people who have faced oppression from cisnormativity in society wouldn't make an argument like that. Also, it was not apparent to me that cisnormativity has ever adversely affected you. I was not making a bad faith accusation, or trying to impugn or insult you in any way. The majority of the people I interact with in everyday life, outside my closest friends, hold cisnormative beliefs. Cisnormativity is something I deal with on a daily basis. The same applies to white privilege: most white people in Western countries (or even East Asia) enjoy white privilege whether they realize it or not, unless they have faced societal oppression for not being white enough. I myself, enjoy certain kinds of privilege due to my education and upbringing, that many other people do not. It's not a personal attack to say that someone has cis privilege, it's just an attempt to get a person to try to re-examine the points of view held by those who don't have similar privileges. I don't think it is in violation of policy to note that an absolutist position on sex membership (or categorization) is very convenient to cis people, but not to others.

That aside, I apologize for not introducing references earlier. I was not as rigorous in my answer seeing as our answers weren't a discussion of article content. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether I (or any editor) is cis or trans (or Caucasian or Asian or Catholic or Muslim, or a member of another broad category of person). Nor is any editor obliged to confirm, deny, or in any way clarify their relationship to one of those categories in order to provide a factual, source, or content opinion on the topic. Our personal relation to demographics do not matter in this place--or at least, aren't meant to, if we don't bring them into the mix ourselves. Further, you don't get to yourself say "I am X, therefor, my opinion is more valid for X, and I am going to act as Arbiter and Gatekeeper of X". Those kinds of arguments from authority just won't fly here. Actually, quite the opposite is true on this project: it can be considered very problematic for an editor (especially a new contributor) to work in areas where they have strong emotional or ideological attachments for which they feel inclined to advocate, as this can be a significant bar to exercising WP:Neutral point of view, one of the pillar concepts of activity here. In any event, you definetly are not allowed to say "I think you're probably Y, therefore I can reach the following conclusions on what you think of X." You might very well get that impression about another contributor from time to time (we all do). But keep it to yourself and don't let it influence how you interact with others or how your arguments are presented.

So, using the discussion in question as an example, it's perfectly acceptable to mention theories or data or cisnormative privilege (and especially useful if you provide sources to support these concepts), but if someone has a different take on those concepts, don't accuse them of having blinders on because of factors that you can't know about and which aren't meant to be part of the discourse here in any event. And although you aren't forbidden from bringing your own background into discussion, it's probably best to avoid that too: in discussions on article content, your perspective won't matter much if you don't have WP:reliable sources to back up and WP:verify your position, and your arguments will carry more weight if you seem to be making them on their merits as a dispassionate observer. And indeed these principles of good argumentation and neutral stance generally apply to the ref desks as well, though the nuances are a little different. Approaching these topics from a stance of indifference is not always easy or consistent with how we intuitively treat the underlying issues when they arise in other areas of our life, I know, but it has advantages when we are working on an encyclopedia. Snow 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia?

• (1) You focus on one small aspect of what I said, ignoring the larger point: your edits have, by and large, not been focused on improving the encyclopedia.
• (2) It depends on the content of the photographs, and their appropriateness for use on en.Wiki (since you actively reject uploading them to Commons, which they're more likely to be used by other language WPs and be seen and used by non-Wikimedians).
• (3) In your case, 3 self-portraits and 14 other photos do not constitute such an improvement to the encyclopedia as to invalidate my point.

BMK (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually have been constructing references to upload to chemistry articles on article space, I just haven't actually written them to articlespace yet -- User:Yanping_Nora_Soong/literature. Also, I'll just say right here -- of course I want to improve the encyclopedia, but the Ref Desk space is very different from the rest of the Misplaced Pages space. Do you wish that I stop contributing because less than half of my edits are to article space? Self-portraits aside, quantity and quality of photographs are different metrics -- actually that should apply to edit counts as well.

I would also like to point out that I haven't been blocked half a dozen times for edit-warring. Are you sure you actually want to improve the encylopedia, BMK? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Yanping Nora Soong, I am absolutely certain that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and for not other reason. I'll also note that, in what appears to be the type of action which others have described above, you turned my attempt to advise you about how to avoid what would seem to be an inevitable sanction in your future into an attack on me. I would suggest that such behavior is not productive, and you should consider that not everything which is addressed to you is a provocation which requires responding in that manner. Clearly, I can talk to you, but there's no way I can make you listen, so good luck to you. BMK (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would encourage you to edit some chemistry articles too. I enjoy answering the chemistry questions by supplying references, but really you are not going to get serious professional chemistry advice on the reference desk! Also I am not upset about your interpretation of the genealogical record sex error. We just have to WP:assume good faith all around. There is no need to complain here about the issues raised above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There is a very big problem with your complaint about Soong's edit counts. Soong has a high edit count at Misplaced Pages:Reference desks because she had several very technical questions to ask, and encountered substantial naysaying and requests for further information from several people including myself. For months, several people at the Refdesk (you can see them there on the talk page now) have been saying that people who seriously ask questions should consider registering accounts to avoid the anti-vandal semi-protection applied to many of the desks for much of the time. Now you come along and say that if an editor's edit counts are invested in Refdesk questions, they're not serving any purpose and there's something wrong with them. We can't have it both ways. My opinion is that asking and answering questions on the Refdesk is a useful encyclopedia building activity, which sometimes suggests direct improvements to articles and in any case is building up a database of raw Q-and-A material that we could use to develop better resources either here or at Wikiversity. I bet those gadgets they advertise on TV that answer questions use our material as part of their database also. In any case, whether or not you think the Refdesk is worthwhile activity, that issue should not be debated just for her alone simply because someone decided to call her question a homework question. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is an accurate evaluation of the situation at all. If YNS asks a certain kind of question at the Ref Desk, and gets the kind of response that indicates that it's not an appropriate question for that venue, and then asks another of the same type of questions, the problem does not lie in the fact that YNS got the same kind of response, the problem lies in the fact that YNS did not take on board that questions of that type are not appropriate. Repeating one's actions and expecting a different kind of result is not a reasonable behavior pattern. BMK (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about executions and suicide referred to by Medeis is here .

Firstly while there was some limited request for speculation in that question but most of it could be answered with refs without speculation. (Some speculation may have been necessary by the OP from these refs, but that is fairly common since a lot of the time there isn't a ref which answers such a specific question. For that reason there may also be some speculation based on refs by respondents.)

The claim it "degenerated" is missing the point, suicide was a part of the question from the beginning and the YNS later specifically asked "Are there routes for a life-sentenced convict to seek official routes to death that wouldn't be classified as a traditional execution". So the possibility of assisted suicide for life-sentence convicts was explicitly related to what the OP was asking about, despite what Medeis or others in the discussion suggested.

Note that the discussion was about avenues under law, it did not venture in to methods or anything of that sort. While some may be uncomfortable with the topic of assisted suicide and I agree we have to be very careful how we handle such questions (in particular why the OP is asking), there's no reason why "what circumstances is assisted suicide a legal avenue" should be disallowed but "what circumstances is the death penalty a legal avenue" is allowed.

The question of when something is crossing in to the territory of legal advice is a tricky one, but IMO that discussion didn't do. Questions about the law can and are asked and answered on the RD. And frankly if you take it to an extreme, I think many would agree it's silly to say we can't discuss with references whether someone who doesn't belong to the Church of England can become the British monarch because we risk providing legal advice. Which is probably why no one has done that.

Actually I considered reverting Medeis, but since they removed it under Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, I decided to wait and see whether the WMF did anything(*). Nothing seemed to happen from the WMF as I expected. But I didn't end up reverting. Even though the discussion there didn't seem to apply to YNS's current circumstances, I was uncomfortable enough with some of the things YNS said elsewhere that I felt it best to let the issue drop.

(*) I presume Medeis did email the WMF as that is a key part of how we respond to people who may be considering self-harm as evidenced by the advice they cited. Deleting comments because you feel they suggest the person could be considering self-half, but not doing any followup would be a very serious breach of protocol as there's a strong risk you could make things worse.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we have two separate issues here:

1. Is User:Medies gaming and/or violating the rules in an effort to prevent User:Yanping Nora Soong's question(s) from being answered? IMHO, yes - clearly. These are really obviously not homework or professional-advice kinds of questions - they don't violate any rules - so this is clearly a misuse of WP:RD - and that should stop. It's a well-meaning, somewhat mild misuse - but Medies needs to be clear that no one user is judge, jury and executioner. A slap on the wrist as a reminder of that would be a welcome outcome - but nothing too heavy-handed.
2. Are User:Yanping Nora Soong's questions acceptable at the reference desks? Well, there are no rules, policies or guidelines saying you can't ask questions about very dangerous chemistry experiments - and Misplaced Pages is not censored...so, yeah, they are acceptable. Should we step in and informally request that similar questions not be asked in the future? Well, maybe - but it can only be a polite request, we have no rules to make this a strong demand or a block or ban or anything of the kind.

That's really as far as ANI needs to rule here.

HOWEVER there is a case for having a debate - absent the issues surrounding misbehavior from Medies or really terrible (but "acceptable") questions from Yanping. I don't think that debate should happen here - this is not a place for the formulation of guidelines. There should be a discussion over on the WP:RD talk page.

Meanwhile, absent some new rule/guideline/policy - I'd encourage everyone to remember that while it is currently OK to ask questions of this sort - we're not required to give answers to them! I'd strongly recommend that if someone asks a question on a topic for which you think an answer might pose some sort of grave risk - then DON'T ANSWER IT!. Feel free to explain the dangers.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Two wrong answers that have been tried and failed vs. one right answer that hasn't been tried

While purposely not commenting on the actions of Yanping Nora Soong (others are handling that just fine), and assuming for the sake of argument that everything Medeis/μηδείς did was right this time, it is a demonstrable fact that Medeis/μηδείς keeps ending up here at ANI, and a certainty that she will be back here again and again, all because of deleting or collapsing other people's comments on the help desks.

Wrong answer #1: Block and/or topic ban Medeis/μηδείς. This is the wrong answer because she does a lot of good work, and because the community does not have a consensus to do either.

Wrong answer #2: Do nothing and let this go on forever. This is the wrong answer because many of the Medeis/μηδείς removals are highly contentious and controversial, and are really disruptive.

Right Answer: Restrict Medeis/μηδείς from one activity -- editing what other editors post. There are plenty of other help desk regulars who have proven themselves able to identify what needs removing and take action without any drama or controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Giubbotto non ortodosso

The user has involved disruptive editing recently. Can someone block indefinitely. 123.136.106.215 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Offhand I can see where they're coming from with their edits to In My Head (Jason Derulo song). This is not meant to be an endorsement of the decision to add or remove anything from an article, just that I can see their rationale in this, given that they were told that AllMusic was not usable here by Cornerstonepicker when it came to genres. However that said, edit warring is unacceptable and both Giubbotto and the other editor that has been taking part in the edit warring has been given a warning by Cyphoidbomb. This seems to be the only thing he's done recently that has been overly controversial, so I don't see where any further action needs to be taken at this point in time. Both Thakillabeatz and Giubbotto non ortodosso need to discuss this on the article's talk page. On a side note, if you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, it's generally considered good form to disclose this when reporting the other user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP above reported this at AIV and pointed out two other IPs that might have been used by Giubbotto, but they provided no evidence to connect, so vandalism wasn't clearly there. Edit-warring was, and I opted to warn rather than block them both. Both sides need to take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Sources and begin a discussion. If there are any ambiguities, they should seek the input of one of the relevant Wikiprojects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The pepole that say that i'm connected to the IPs from Italy are two vandals that i've reported, and after they've been blocked, so why did you believe in them, me and the IPs have only two pages where we edit in common, so please stop saying that i am connected with those vandals--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant reading: User talk:Jenks24#User from Italy? and #Vandals of pages music. Not sure I can add much to that, I'm still not full sure what's going on here. Jenks24 (talk)

User started sockpuppet investigation against themselves

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN. I have no idea what is going on. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tora Tora Tora!!! That's pretty specialist, tbh... _Fortuna 07:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 :Appears to be a compromised account. AKA they left their laptop open, or they forgot to logout of a public computer. an admin should put a temporary block and revoke TP access before it snowballs. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that at the very least ZOKIDIN looks like they're not very fluent in English. I got the impression that they're a Russian speaker given some of their edits, so I've asked for help at the Russian Misplaced Pages and pinged a native Russian speaker to the SPI. I know that in one of their edits they seem to have asked for the account to be closed, so this does kind of give the impression that the account may be compromised. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

user:ZODIKIN

OOPS, duplicated report

WP:NOTHERE:

• ZOKIDIN (talk · contribs)
• Open Dragon in Portal2 (talk · contribs)
• ZOKIDIN2 (talk · contribs)
• Milanarashidova (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов 2 (talk · contribs)

Someone is frolicking inclding self-reporting Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN - üser:Altenmann >t 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OOPS, duplicated report

• OneLittleMouse (talk · contribs) Xakep. ZOKIDIN (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have blocked ZODIKIN2, the filer of the SPI, indef, this is clearly a vandal and an impersonator. I am not sure about ZODIKIN, they do not have to be there, and this is not really promising (check that page history), but for the moment I do not have enough data to block them indef. Generally, I have an impression that one or more users, after having been banned from the Russian Misplaced Pages, decided that they can have fun here even without speaking any English. Recently, I blocked a number of accounts who created their userpages claiming they are socks of Никита-Родин-2002, some of them even edit-warred at their talk pages after getting blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this about? You think I'm a sock??? This is my only account. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

No, I do not think you are a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

"Russian socks are always correct, Mister Bond" _Fortuna 12:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: This is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 (note the connection mentioned in the CU results at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN). "Никита-Родин-2002" often reports his own socks (he used to add them to his own SPI report, but can't do that anymore, since it has been semi-protected), and even more often adds socktags to his own socks, no doubt in order to get more blocked socks to brag to his equally juvenile buddies about. So always look for connections to Nikita Rodin first... Thomas.W 14:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

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

I can't edit the SPI page. User:Xin Deui appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Hovertover and maybe User:DonSpencer1. 137.205.238.61 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you'd kindly prove your point with diffs, I'll be grateful. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similarity of edits: e.g. (many similar examples) and focus on same narrow article range: . 137.205.238.61 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of WP:NOTHERE? There could be a connection between the two, but how exactly are the edits non-constructive. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic IP not updating timestamps

Hi, there is an issue with a dynamic IP not updating timestamps on football players. After the edits, the editor leaves the BLP's as factually incorrect as it says "correct as of 12 December 2015" (as an example) which is incorrect because matches has been added before that. Apart from being factually incorrect it also causes some issues when other editors see article and think "oh, it has not been updated" and add all matches since 12 December again so now they are added 2 times and player has an even higher number of played matches.

Since this is an dynamic IP, messages at their talkpage has not helped which is why I suggest a range-block.

Some involved IP's are:

• 2A02:587:2809:CC00:4945:AE9:7BA2:3A82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:a1d7:75b6:ed62:3e7d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9458:9e1a:58a4:1b44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:e8e4:51c1:291a:33bb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:44e2:2cef:8643:4592 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:309a:9daf:c74:20f5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9815:ce0a:e27b:3e2c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:e07d:22b0:1681:3ac2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:f11f:d99b:e0c0:f2f (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and some of the articles are:

• Sebá
• Jimmy Durmaz
• Dimitris Siovas
• Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981)
• Luka Milivojević

Please help, the edits are being disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, editor with almost similar username, sorry to say that it sadly won't be feasible. Any range-block would block wayyyyy too many IP addresses. It was difficult with IPv4s and now it's a diabolical situation with IPv6. Protecting the articles is probably the only thing we can do. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it would be good if the following pages were protected: Jimmy Durmaz, Sebá, Dimitris Siovas, Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981), Luka Milivojević, Arthur Masuaku, Manuel da Costa (footballer), Brown Ideye, Pajtim Kasami and Giannis Maniatis. Qed237 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not diabolical at all. It's two networks, same Greek ISP, probably the same guy editing from two places. Don't get caught up in the number of IP addresses available with an IPv6 network. 2a02:587:2809:cc00::/64 and 2a02:587:280f:db00::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. Katie 17:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I forgot about rangecontribs. Since I can't find it anyway, throw in a link here, please. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. ). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits (), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ( and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion (). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk (, until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past (), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ( For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Misplaced Pages. — Bilorv_(talk) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeated WP:NPA violations against several users despite several warnings

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

Religions Explorer continues to launch strong personal attacks against myself and other users. This new account takes a very aggressive stance towards anyone disagreeing. In the last few days alone, Religions Explorer first engaged in edit warring with DanielRigal, telling the user to "stay away" from the article in a fragrant WP:OWN violation . After Religions Explorer engaged in extensive edit warring at Muhammad (an article under sanctions) , , , I posted the standard warning to WP:3RR . In response, Religions Explorer called me a "liar" . Not sure what the "lie" was as the user was clearly edit warring; the user was also warned by both Amatulić and Eperoton . The user next proceeded to indicate I'm a troll and was again warned for the policy violations by myself and DanielRigal . The user then posted on a discussion on ANI to again accuse me of lying and (somewhat ironically) claimed I was "making personal attacks and slandering" . I again tried to explain that calling others "liars" is a WP:NPA violation, and in response I just got even more abuse, and was called liar five times in one short post. . In short, this allegedly new user (with a remarkable knowledge of WP) seems to have something against me in particular, but takes a hostile attitude to several editors. Despite having been warned about their disruptive behavior by four different editors just in the last few days, the user just seems to increase the disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I too am disturbed at the disruptive behavior coming from this user whose edits seem to be sincere attempts at improving content, but who seems to have a battleground mentality when someone objects to the edits, and doesn't understand the concept of collaboration (in particular when an article is under discretionary sanctions). I'd like to see Religion Explorer's response before I say anything else. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours with a reminder that recidivism will prompt fiercer sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Vtrnascimento

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

I don't know the policies on possible Twinkle abuse but User:Vtrnascimento's editing is concerning to me. User:Vtrnascimento has been removing all backlinks to articles based on them being proposed for deletion or being listed at AFD alone. For example, the editor removed these links to List of supercentenarians who died in the 1980s and to based on a prod which was denied, didn't bother to restore the link when they were denied and then removed the remainder because they were listed at AFD. Now, it's my AFD and it's going my way but I still don't like it. It's been going on for days with this link to Hannah Morris (paleoethnobotany) which of course if kept is now completely orphaned. I gave a warning to the editor about the fact that if they are kept, the pages are now uselessly orphaned but does someone think these should be reversed until the actual deletion is complete? Can a bot do that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Just reverted ALL the "unlink-backlinks-before-the-article-in-question-is-deleted-type" editions I made. And also, all of them (the link removals) were good faith, so don't get deluded. And I promise I'll only do the unlinking when the article is already deleted. Thanks. Vtrnascimento (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me then. Thanks. My suggestion in the future is to review the article alerts pages (say for FOOTY) like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Article alerts and wait until it's actually deleted. Since anyone can remove a prod, there's a lot of reason for caution and waiting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting original "research" defacing Strongly interacting massive particle

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

The article, Strongly interacting massive particle, has been edited to include a passage that contradicts established physics. Apart from one minor edit elsewhere, this seems to be the user's sole contribution. I removed the offending paragraph indicating that if it is restored, I'll request administrator assistance, since I have no desire to start an edit war. As the paragraph has been restored by the author, here I am, requesting assistance. vttoth (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on wikipedia while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very strange report. The nominator and I have been having a constructive discussion on this at Category talk:Southern Levant. Prior to my recent edits I wrote a talk page message which pinged him here. Everything is being proactively discussed. I don't understand why the editor felt it was appropriate to claim ARBPIA violations. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was only a discussion four months ago after you arbitrarily removed Southern Levant from dozens of articles. It was suggested that you engage in dialog. It seemed that we HAD come to an agreement, as the page wasn't modified for four months, only to have you again go back to removing Southern Levant from dozens of pages, along with proposing to have an associated category deleted at the same time. Your editing behavior on this subject, random breaks of 1/3 of a year or several years, is not commensurate with collaborative editing. Nor, btw, are personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had any nefarious intentions I would not have notified you before my edits. How do you explain why I bothered to notify you? I am actively trying to gain your trust, but your suspicions appear to run very deep. I promise you if you take a cold shower and come back and look at all of this you may realize that you have misinterpreted and overreacted on a number of recent occasions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow the passive aggression and condescension of the above message to speak for itself. Obviously posting a notice seconds before abruptly editing 22 ARBPIA articles in seven minutes, 3 months after the conclusion of the discussion is not collaboration. Drsmoo (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least accept that I felt this to be a reasonable method of collaboration? I inform you, I use HotCat to make the edits in a clearly labelled fashion, and then you have the opportunity to revert the ones you disagree with. Which you have now done with 9 articles. It is just more efficient, because we don't have to discuss the 13 that we both agree with. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, overwriting an admin's redirect and constantly removing links and references to the region across wikipedia is not reasonable. You've already stated the Southern Levant to be and I have yet to see you make any edits related to this subject that weren't either deleting links to it, deleting images from pages, or trying to have categories and articles related to the region deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this back to the top as it remains unresolved. Another disruptive incident occurred today. Five hours after Syro-Palestinian archaeology was moved to Levantine archaeology by a three to one consensus (nine votes to three), Oncenawhile issued an ultimatum that if the article didn't conform to his standards within "a month or two" he would "propose moving it back", which is of course completely ridiculous and demonstrates an absolute lack of interest in consensus. Rather than working on improving the article, he instead added a tag and issued an ultimatum. One would think if he were interested in improving the article he would choose to work on it and contribute to it instead. If completely ignoring consensus and stating his intent to move the article back mere hours after the move isn't disruptive then I'm curious to hear an example of what is. Drsmoo (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow-walking, sweet-talking Jones

Clearly I'm talking to a brick wall here. Repetitive AN/I filings will not help matters. Actually take it to COIN, I don't see a problem with the word though... or just drop the stick. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Can I have some views as to whether "You are a fucking liar, Pete" constitutes a personal attack? A lie is a knowing falsehood, and so far as I am aware, the whole discussion referenced is about a single word – "winningest" - and how one editor is going to extraordinary lengths to use this nonsense word in our supposedly serious encyclopaedia. I present the truth as I see it, and I resent the implication that I'm deliberately lying. --Pete (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Cussing at someone and calling them a liar absolutely is a personal attack. No one on Misplaced Pages should be doing saying that to any editor here ever! --MurderByDeletionism 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not a liar, you're just ignorant of the facts. The term "winningest" has been around for over 2 centuries. It's kind of slangy, but it's not a "nonsense" word. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, so it's the other fellow who's edit-warring, not you, Skyring?

...this nonsense word Except, as you've been told, it's no such thing. As this link points out:

...Yet despite the existence of grammatically unquestionable alternatives (most winning, best), winningest is deeply entrenched in sports commentary and is not going away any time soon. Those who dislike it might as well get used to it. Google News searches show winningest has been common since the 1940s, and there are scattered examples from earlier. The word has always been confined mainly to American and Canadian publications.

My copy of the OED 2nd Edition doesn't have usage notes, but it DOES use that form in three of their example quotes for the "winning" entry. So if you know it's an actual word, used in actual publications, then you KNOW it's not a "nonsense word", and continuing to maintain that claim might fall under "knowing falsehood", hmm? --Calton | Talk 06:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While it a word with a dictionary definition, it is also informal. As per WP:FORMAL we should try to avoid using informal terms, unless in a direct quote.

Also, as per MOS:COMMONALITY we should try to find and use universal terms where possible. "most successful" is a more universal term.

It has nothing to do with a bias towards British English, as "most successful" is just as commonly used and understood in American English as it is in British English.

I don't think it adds anything to the article to use the word "winningest" and it detracts from both the desired tone of an encyclopedia and the desire to have an international encyclopedia Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, while I agree that we should avoid words which are perceived as being slangy or informal, I do want to point out that "winningest" and "most successful" are not precisely the same, as their connotations are somewhat different. There are a number of ways in which sports teams might be the "most successful" -- i.e. having the most championships, making the most money, attracting the most fans, etc. -- only one of which is to be the "winningest". BMK (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that most successful can have many connotations, however in the context of the lead and the article, the meaning is very clear. Even if there was a little ambiguity in regards to the meaning, it would be so minor that having the correct tone and universally understood English is a far more important consideration. But.. I have an idea and an edit in mind that might remove the possibility of ambiguity without sacrificing the requirements of WP:FORMAL or MOS:COMMONALITY Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about American sports, but isn't "when ... Fracassa won the most games in Michigan High School football history" exactly the same as "when ... Fracassa became the winningest coach in Michigan High School football history", with the advantage that people outside the US aren't actually going "um? what?"? Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

exactly Laura. I wanted something a little more succinct, so I changed winningest to most victorious which should be understood by everyone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm being selfish. This was a hijacked question, that initially dealt with a claim of incivility. "You are a fucking liar, Pete" is an obvious example of gross incivility, and highly worthy of a block. The profanity used, makes it clear that the editor needs to calm down and carefully rethink how to deal with people on wikipedia. A block will make sure that he takes the time to calm down and reflect, while also making sure that he understands there are consequences for such comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pete was correct or not (and I see absolutely no intent to deliberately deceive), that is absolutely a personal attack and User:Dennis Bratland should take a lot more care with his language in the future. Lankiveil 10:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

• It's true that many of the sports articles here are badly written editorials rather than encyclopedia articles. "Winningest" is an annoying stupid non-word, suitable maybe for low-brow sports journalism, but not for an encyclopedia. It should be excised on sight. The same goes for saying "would go on to score the winning goal" when you really mean "scored the winning goal". Reyk _YO! 11:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can argue that it's too slangy to be encyclopedic. But to call it a "non-word" is a false characterization. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I prefer to communicate in proper English. "Winningest" is not just a slangy neologism, but an annoying affectation as well, it's restricted to one subject area (low-brow sports journalism) in one geographical region (parts of North America), and does not count as a real word in my opinion any more than, say, "Schweppervescence", contrafibularities, or embiggen are real words. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, this. Although the meaning of the word is probably fairly easy to work out by its very nature, we should not be using words that the majority of the English-speaking world may be meeting for the first time when there are far better alternatives. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The term is 2 centuries old, so it is hardly a "neologism". And do you consider The Wall Street Journal to be "low-brow"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It still isn't proper English. Are you arguing to use this "word" in Misplaced Pages articles? Reyk _YO! 12:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Who should I believe? You? Or Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc.? My money's on the sources rather than on your personal opinion. You can find longer "proper English" phrases to substitute for "winningest". But you continue to argue that it's "not a word" - and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
              • Are you arguing to use this "word" in Misplaced Pages articles? Reyk _YO! 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                • Not necessarily. I'm mostly arguing that you've got your facts wrong. It IS a word, whether you like it or not. The sources say so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • I see, so this has been an exercise in semantic pedantry on your part. Gotcha. I still do not consider "winningest" a real word; I set the bar somewhat higher. Please don't waste my time again. Good day. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • There are plenty of words with long histories which see use in reliable sources, but no matter how many Guardian columnists use "fuck" or "bugger", I'm not sure we're going to see them in Misplaced Pages articles any time soon. Ditto things like contractions, which are well-attested and commonly-used, but verboten (and rightly so) by the MOS. Whether a word is "real" or not and whether it should be used or not are two entirely different arguments, and while "winningest" just sounds like a Colemanball to this reader, I'm willing to accept it's a word in the dictionary sense—but still one more informal than we're wont to use. That's before we would even look at readability, either—it's not a great idea to use words regularly which the lay reader might have to look up to understand, especially in articles which aren't overly dense in nature, so it suits the reader (our end goal after all) to be more legible, I would think. GRAPPLE 13:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fucking plenty mate e.g., and, and..., etc... Mind you, I totally agree that 'winningest' is one of the most dumbass words in the history of the language. Which it shouldn't belong to. _Fortuna 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that "bugger" is a totally formal and encyclopedic word when used in the correct context. But that's just me making a petty point. We have to make articles understandable for our readers, we have to retain some formality, but we shouldn't shy away from technical words if they add something to the article. A lot of the time, articles are written by people with a lot of experience in that particular subject, and the words used are suitable for their peers, but they have to consider that some people like myself are dumbasses, and require just a touch of dumbing down. The key is to find the nice balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, any word used over 1K times in The New York Times was gone well past the "nonsense" stage into "acceptable use in a major reliable source" stage. Starting in 1906. If a word has been used in the New York Times for well over a century, there is no way we can seriously dispute its usage. Collect (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Losingest" only gets 63: , and they only go back to 1955. Seems a shame to me, I'd love to see "losingest" coaches and teams, but I guess we'll need to live with the anomaly for now, since the NYT has "spoken". Or we could just stick with proper English the world understands, and fails to laugh at. I'm easy either way. Begoon  15:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did I hear someone say Roll Tide? I took "winningest" to the HEL class I was taking in 1995 or 1996, having never heard the term before; my rather descriptive professor had no problem with it. It ain't pretty, IMO, but it is a word. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Make it part of ENGVAR, seems like the best solution for most fun. Tide can be winningest, since US, but Chelsea are not, since GB... Begoon  15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are words that have been in dictionaries - especially a number of British colloquialisms and regionalisms - for far longer than 100 years that I'd never use in articles, because (a) a large amount of our readership wouldn't understand them, and (b) they can be substituted with something far more understandable. "Winningest" isn't used outside a small subset of region (North America) and type of source (i.e. sports reporting) and since it's easily replaceable, we shouldn't be using it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I only want to point out that the thing Pete/Skyring keeps lying about is the slander that I won't drop the "winningest" argument. I said I was going to drop it, and I did. Yet he keeps lying about that. He keeps accusing me of never collaborating, or compromising. I have shown evidence that is a lie, yet he keeps saying it. That's what that was all about.

  I think there should be an RfC to discusses this other thing, rather than quietly changing the FAs and GAs that use "winningest", as Skyring and Spacecowboy420 are currently attempting. Not this word alone, but to answer the questions: Is slang any word an editor doesn't like? Or do dictionaries tell us what is and isn't slang? What is and isn't a word? Is WP:Writing better articles Policy? Or just an essay? Is there a List of Words You Must Never Say On Misplaced Pages? Should there be? Should we use stable Featured Articles and Good Articles as guides to good writing, or ignore them as mere stuff? Can we dismiss the language in our best sources (the NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc) as mere "tabloids", "slang"? Or is the fact that our sources use it what tells us what words and tone we should use? These are the core questions behind this debate which should be answered by the community.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • And I think many here want to point out that you probably shouldn't say "you are a fucking liar". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it so surprising that when someone repeats the same slander enough times, they are eventually told to fuck off? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this has become sidetracked on the issue of this word. I believe this was started to address Mr bratland behavior. Is he really allowed to personaly attack and swear at another editor simply because he became irritated. And there are no repercussions or consequences? 72bikers (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks like there's no consequences for Wikihounding, canvassing, vote stacking or forum shopping either. Funny how you guys don't want to see those rules so strictly enforced, but now you're demanding action. You are allowed to say fuck on Misplaced Pages, by the way. Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck a fucking fuck. You guys have to start actually reading the policies and guidelines that do not say what you think they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, this debate is becoming tediously long. Clearly nobody took this to COIN as I suggested (at least, I can't see a report), and I think some of you here need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK - heck, déjà vu to say the least; I put a link to that essay in my closing report of Spacecowboy's filing of Mr. Bratland. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here. Constantly filing AN/I reports is not only repetitive but it is not working, nor is it going to work, because it has never worked in the past. Either take it to COIN like I suggested before, or drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • I also would like to point out that this is pretty indicative of how he deals with other editors that disagree with him. He has also admitted to stalking other editors and tracking there contributions. He has openly admitted this and of riffling through mine to just to try and throw something in my face. He has also invited his close personal friend to join in and attack other editors. He has accused other editors with unsupported claims of uncivil and harassing behavior. When it has been him that has left unjust threating messages on others talk pages in a effort to intimates them . And still instead of amending his behavior he just throws guilt elsewhere. 72bikers (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry. I can't see how taking demonstrated examples of personal attacks and gross incivility to COIN would help. Where's the conflict of interest? Is there truly no way that the community can act against Bratland's calling other editors motherfuckers? Is this the community that is going to attract fresh editors to carry on the work? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Chesnaught555 why did you close this? You're actively involved in a discussion started by Dennis Bratland, in which he requests for a block on a user for incivility, agreeing with him and pushing for the user to be blocked, however on this discussion which is a far more serious accusation against Dennis Bratland, you are closing the discussion? If you have valid and unbiased input that you wish to add to these discussions, then please do - but try to close the newer one, while contributing to the older one, just because of some bias towards/against certain editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time you have closed a report against Dennis Bratland and recommended that no action is taken against him. Having good faith in your comments, your closing of discussions and your recommendations that people in dispute with Dennis Bratland is not very easy right now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I am starting to think you are right. I will back down. Forget I tried to close it, if you want to. All I am saying is, this issue which a small group of you have with this editor has gone on for too long, and as you can all see, nothing has been achieved. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wondering how JC Gonzalez came to be listed as a Good Article

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

The article JC Gonzalez has a Good Article tag, even though it's terrible - marginal notability at best, no better source than IMDB and with some images that were obvious copyvios until I flagged them. (It's up for deletion now-it doesn't seem to ever have had good content that got removed.) Does anyone know how it got to be a Good Article and if this needs looking at? There's no discussion on the talk page. Blythwood (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• The GA template was added in this edit. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've removed it. It was never nominated or reviewed as a good article, just added by an editor. Melonkelon (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Brilliant, thanks! Obviously not ideal, but looking at the edit that looks like it might have been an honest mistake copying across categories wrongly (another category added is clearly a mistake.) Blythwood (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Any views on Portal:JC Gonzalez?

• Some people build shrines in their closets, others make elaborate Misplaced Pages portals and articles. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Serious personal attacks by User:Indruraz

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

I just changed the header to better reflect the importance of the section. —teb728 t c 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Indruraz is making several edits accusing Worldbruce in the edit summaries of being a "blocked sock-master." Since the block log does not show any blocks, this is obviously false. —teb728 t c 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) For example, and . —teb728 t c 11:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Also "archiving" a non-existant SPI against Worldbruce: —teb728 t c 11:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Knowing how to go to SPI, archive, using the sock block and sock tag templates, (which are very obscure even for non admin veterans), moving over redirects, making their first edits at WP:BRFA, all of this in the first 57 edits. I don't think I've ever heard louder quacking than this. Obvious sock is obvious. Time for a WP:DUCK block. Blackmane (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy deletion of this link which created a fake SPI page for Worldbruce and turned it into a redirect to an actual SPI archive. If this action was the forgery that it looks like, it would be a serious personal attack that needs to be addressed. Scr★pIron 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And this edit, which I have reverted, is an even more serious personal attack, since it creates a fake SPI report against Worldbruce and then archives it to a real SPI-investigation (the one the redirect mentioned above leads to). It also shows that it's a very experienced editor... Thomas.W 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that with this edit Indruraz adds to an article a composite file created by blocked sockmaster Armaanaziz—the same user he tried to associate Worldbruce with. If Indruraz is in fact Armaanaziz, it would explain his experience with SPIs. —teb728 t c 20:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• I notice that Indruraz collaborated with Minhaz.de in creating the fake SPI. —teb728 t c 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A big Thank you to teb728, Blackmane, ScrapIronIV, and Thomas.W for guarding my back. I've opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaanaziz in regard to the matter. You can read all about it there if you're so inclined (it's long, but there's a short version). Worldbruce (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Assistance requested on legal warning

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

Please see this message from Tommy N. Trash. I'm looking for assistance to respond. Earlier I've reverted this user's edit in Tommy Trash which I felt should not be in an article. Vipinhari || talk 11:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment on the removed diff appears to be a simple case of somebody thinking that they can contact a page's subject through Misplaced Pages. The diff on your talk page, however, is an unambiguous legal threat that is addressed directly to you, and accordingly, a block has been placed. (WP:DOLT doesn't seem to be relevant here, as an aside, due to the fact the dispute, assuming it is legitimate, is over the use of somebody's copyrighted stage name.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for lending a helping hand. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As a totally irrelevant side note, there *is* a trademark on the name "Tommy Trash" with respect to music -- but it's owned by a "Trash Time LLC" out of California, and only dates back to 2014. --Carnildo (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris Stark article

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

Hello, if anyone is around right now, could you please check this out? An entire nest of IPs making various nonsense edits per minute (!), at this moment ongoing. An RPP has apparently already been requested, but nobody seems to be there? Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Been fixed! Poepkop (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. What, a few hundred edits in some twenty minutes? Didn't we have some fancy filter that could put a stop to that? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was really fast, like up to 10 edits per minute, the filter hopefully someone else knows about? (I'll have to read up on filters).Poepkop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

user:Tom29739 and page WatchOS

The above newbie user keeps editing the page to the wrong marketing version ("watchOS") which ONLY goes in the lead as per the MOS of the above page (and is trying it on on the TVOS page as well) – despite previous discussions by other users months ago as to correct naming convention we use on WP! He is also trying to quote the MOS says things it doesn't, and/or is selectively quoting parts of it to suit his own POV on getting it switched to this wrong marketing version. I have been involved with editing Apple-ralated articles for years now on WP, and this really is getting tiresome having these 'but I know I'm right!' argumentative protracted re-re-re-discussions with new editors continually about Apple's marketing naming convention vs. correct English language usage and the acceptable variations WP use. Please block user for a period accordingly. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - Please remember to notify the user when you make an ANI thread, I have done so for you. --allthefoxes 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Apologize for jumping the gun a bit there. --allthefoxes 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I did it ~10 secs later, lol! Thanks anyway. Jimthing (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:The talk page of the 'watchOS' page has nothing on it about the naming of the article. Where are these 'previous discussions by other users'? Tom29739 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom29739: Countless discussions on other Apple pages and elsewhere with exactly the same issue. Jimthing (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:Others on the 'tvOS' discussion agree with me. Tom29739 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: Please post some diffs of these "countless discussions". Not all of them, as that would be countless, but several would be good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just go to Apple page histories and see for yourself. The most relevant WP guideline is clear, and has been for years: "Conventionally, Misplaced Pages articles usually give the normal English spelling in the lead, followed by a note such as "(stylized as ...)" with the stylized version, then revert to using normal English for the remainder of the article." Jimthing (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - "Go and see for yourself" is not appropriate on ANI. Diffs are necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE JonFreeD AlekSmith7

Nenad_Gligo_Vrhovac: JonFreeD (talk · contribs) created this hoax article and AlekSmith7 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion tags from it. Clear socking and NOTHERE. IMO waste of wikipedians' time, seen from page history must be severely punished. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem - The article you mentioned has been deleted as a G3. If you suspect sock puppetry, you need to open a case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations - have you done this? Since the article is deleted, the contributions of both accounts no longer are listed (I assume that their contributions were only made to that article). However, looking at their logs, I see that they were created within a day of one another. If the accounts are no longer causing disruption, a block might not be performed until they do so (since blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I'll leave that for an admin to review and decide. Bottom line: if you suspect sock puppetry, open an SPI case. ~Oshwah~ 06:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Social networking by United kingdoms my home

User:United kingdoms my home has done almost nothing but social networking and userpage adornment on this site. I sent them a message asking them not to carry on, but they removed it without response and have continued misusing other editors' talk pages. If not checked, this behaviour may encourage others to treat our site in the same way. I think an admin's final warning may be in order: Noyster (talk), 18:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is definitely only making edits to others' talk pages or his own userspace. While I'm not seeing a blatant violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (he's not using Misplaced Pages to host a blog, uploading files and using Misplaced Pages as a hosting service, that kind of stuff...) - he is editing in a manner that scratches that policy. I must admit that I haven't added discussion to this kind of an ANI report in some time (I'm used to giving my $.02 on ANI threads that involve much bigger and disruptive fish), so I'll abstain from making a recommendation for action. However, I will say that WP:NOTHERE can apply in this case. ~Oshwah~ 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Noyster Perhaps you can tell him that WP:NOTHERE can lead to his editing privileges being taken away? I don't think that we should come down on newbies like a ton of bricks, so perhaps we can coax him to start editing articles. If he starts working on articles I have no beef with him decorating his own userspace. To be frank I have no idea what pleasure/output he derives from this activity. This is not likea blog etc which is for public. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack on Jewish editors?

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

See Talk:Leo Frank#Opening Paragraph. "If you review the talk page archives, you will find that the actual vandalizing of this article has been done by Frank's proponents, in order to keep most of the evidence of Frank's guilt out of the article so he may continue to be falsely presented as a victim of "antisemitism". Also, many editors who have sought a neutral point of view for the article have had their contributions reverted, their arguments hidden or deleted from the talk page, and even been blocked or banned over trumped up charges of sockpuppetry or other supposed offenses in order to maintain the false consensus that Frank's proponents fought so hard to achieve.

Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily jewish. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of jewish authors. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-jewish authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antisemitic" smear. Tom Watson, the famous, well respected lawyer, author, and statesman, who was a contemporary of Frank, and wrote and published the most definitive series of articles on Mary Phagan's murder and the trial of Leo Frank is the most notable example."

A relevant edit by the same editor who started a section "Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word" - you need to read it all for context, but possibly the most relevant sentence is "It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda." In an edit just before that one the IP supports GingerbreadHarlot. Note that at GH's SPI the IP was found not related to GH. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited in a while. This seems unnecessary.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. _Fortuna 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying you don't think "this (is) an attack on Jewish editors"? Or agreeing with the IP that this discussion isn't necessary? Your indenting suggests the later, but I'm not so sure from the comment Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks User:Nil Einne, precision is required. I was responding to the OP, and disagreeing with the IP. I don't think it's anti-Jewish, but definitely do think the discussion is necessary. Thanks for pointing that out! _Fortuna 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the issue, but the last edits namely those referred to at the beginning of the discussion were only slightly more than 1 day ago () and as Doug Weller has sort of indicated, the IP seems to be a semi regular editor e.g. so I don't think behaviour concerns should be ignored because the IP hasn't edited in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The word Jewish is somewhat inflammatory, no matter what the context. Let's replace it with the word 'plumber'. "Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily plumbers. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of authors who are plumbers. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-plumber authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antiplumber" smear." Now, would any plumber take offence? I don't think so. Methinks the objector doth protest too much. Akld guy (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who claim that Misplaced Pages allows any sort of bigotry but anti-Semitism, we can always point them to this thread. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am always inclined to mistrust IP editors. But 76.72 is absolutely correct. @Akid guy: overlooks the fact that being a plumber is a choice, not an accident of birth, and the memory of six million, aside from all that, Misplaced Pages ought to be exquisitely careful of its appearances in this article, as indeed in all articles that are magnets for those who would excuse racist lynching. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that because you (and I) were born into a certain category, we have more right to be outraged than someone who was not so born? OK, replace 'plumber' with 'blue-eyed'. Akld guy (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if we lived in another world where anti-blueism was a thing that had been used to justify major genocides in recent history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not a historian, so when I first ran across this article, I didn't know what was going on. But then I discovered a useful piece of information, which makes sense when you think about it: Who would be the only people on the planet so relentlessly interested in "proving" Frank wasn't innocent? Yep, antisemites. No one else would care so much. Also, if you give them long enough, they all eventually try to source crap to Stormfront-lite type websites. So yes, this is antisemitism, and this is why the page is protected, and you can safely and confidently block these two IPs. I've removed the thread from the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Coded incivil message at RFC

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

There is currently and RFC going on at the Royal Tunbridge Wells talk page over the inclusion of a term in the article. During this discussion @CountyOfKent: added this cryptic comment. An IP responded by stating if people had read the first letter of each word in the comment, which if that is done reads as a sweary insult which I have included a translation of here. I am not sure whether this warrants any action as the RFC has also been plagued with cases of IPs duplicating !votes and repeating claims made by others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Was he talking about you? _Fortuna 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: He could have been but I think equally it could have been aimed at Charles or Fuhghettaboutit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, along with the responses to it. I'd be inclined to go with a warning followed if necessary by a block. However I suspect an SPI for some of the new accounts might be more fruitful. -- zzuuzz 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty blatant socking going on there. Keri (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--did we really need a code breaker for this? Anyway--CountyOfKent, one wonders where you came from but if you keep this up it's no mystery where you're going. Zzuuzz, if you can drag yourself away from your fan club I think running CU here would not be merely fishing. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked CountyOfKent as an obvious single purpose sock. If someone sees it differently and wants to unblock, I'll be offline for a while, so just use your best judgment--I won't object. Jonathunder (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement here. SQL 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Block was warranted for (passive?) incivility. I also think that WP:NOTHERE can apply as well. I'm going to go ahead and close this. ~Oshwah~ 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive user returns from block and starts behaving even worse

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

Religions Explorer, who was blocked yesterday by Nyttend came back from the block and immediately returned to disruptions. As discussed yesterday, the user often violates WP:OWN by telling users who disagree to stay away and has made repeated personal attacks , . After returning from the block, the first edit was a long preaching post beside the topic, which is hardly much of a problem though it did violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Several users have explained, over and over again, that we operate by sources. Religions Explorer's reply to my comment was the usual, telling me to "stay away" in a post that had nothing to do with the topic . When I pointed out, before returning to the actual topic, that the user needs to respect others and everybody can edit Religions Explorer flat out deleted my comment from the article talk page . After Favonian reinstated my comment, the user then made 100% off-topic personal attack by calling me a troll . This kind of behavior from a user only a few hours after their latest block expired is strongly indicative of someone who is not here to work with others. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur; this user requires blocking. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and further action is most definitely required. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the battleground mentality of the other editors in the thread, or should we continue to address this as a content dispute (like it is).142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no content dispute, nor is there any other user causing problems in the thread. All other users agree perfectly with each other. (Even if there were behavioral issues with other users, they would not be an excuse. Meeting uncivil behavior with uncivil behavior is not acceptable) Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can't say I am surprised to see everybody back here today but I think that giving him a very short block was exactly the right thing to do. If he was willing to listen then that might have got his attention and it was right to give him that chance. At least we know where we stand now. The sad thing is that he still thinks that he is the good guy and everybody else is a troll. This guy is probably not flat out bad but I think that he is too misguided to contribute constructively. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

True, he is probably not a vandal, but it's very much an attitude problem that violates both WP:OWN and WP:NPA several times a day. First at least 4-5 users tried to tell him, then warn him, to change his behavior. It did not help, it just got worse. Then he was given a short block and warned the next block would be longer. As you say, probably right to give him just a short block as a firmer warning, but it also just bounced off. He is convinced not just that he's right about the topics, but also that he has the right to edit war, to tell other users to stay away from articles, and to insult other users. It makes WP less enjoyable and less productive for everybody else. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reblocked for a week, with a reminder to stop and a suggestion that an additional block might be a months-long thing. I'm hesitant to start off with a long block, preferring to start with something short (either it will get the subject to shape up, or it will demonstrate that a long block is needed) and ramp up from there, but when the ramping has already started, I'm significantly less optimistic. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate action looks to have been taken to address this ANI thread. Can we go ahead and close this? ~Oshwah~ 05:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been contacted about a Speedy deletion I tagged

The following is a post on my talk page, it relates to the Speedy deletion of Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute. I tagged it for Speedy G11 and G12 after reviewing it. I'm afraid I do not at present have the time to deal with this appropriately, nor do I, as a non-Admin, have access to the deleted content. The editor needs to be informed about COI, PROMO, and the fact that we neither require nor desire their permission for an article about the institute to exist (or not). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent him a coi-welcome. SQL 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfect and appropriate response. Even if this letter was relevant to anything as far as article creation is concerned, we wouldn't have the ability to verify the authenticity or legitimacy of it anyways... so there's that :-). The article has been deleted. If they re-create or send additional inquiries, it's a perfect opportunity to educate the user about our notability guidelines and what and what does not warrant its own article. As for now, I think this thread can be closed as no further action appears to be required from anyone. ~Oshwah~ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, good response. To make it even better, I'll add a few words of explanation about that letter and about releasing copyright content for use by Misplaced Pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A vandal appears to be specifically subverting your policies to avoid punishment

There are various IP addresses suspected of being the same user due to the similarities in the vandalisim and two patterns among the IP addresses who have been doing what appears to be hit-and-run vandalism on Superior Defender Gundam Force and List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, among other various pages. Information on this specific pair of pages in particular are not common knowledge to english-speaking Gundam fans and is ALWAYS uncited. I am completely unable to warn or notify user due to the constantly changing IP address and general inactivity over long periods of time, this is presumably done to avoid punishment. Though I did bring up the issue on the talk page of List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, which the user/users has/have completely ignored. As it so happens, this also means the pages the user is vandalizing can not be protected according to your policies either. I would like to know exactly why your policies leave absolutely no possible way to deal with users such as this one/these ones.

It should also be noted that the IPs and diffs on List of Superior Gundam Force Characters are too numerous by this point to link all of them, but I will list a few examples to help you pinpoint all of the vandalism (it's pretty much everything I've personally removed from the page though). Forgive me as I'm not sure how to properly format these urls in this site's formatting.

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=637861427
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=638481189
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=668868262&oldid=668009979
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=696614204&oldid=691384784
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696614204
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696737061
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=prev&oldid=695069640
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=680807736&oldid=668983255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=582528548&oldid=542553008 (earliest example I could find in the page's history, which was quickly followed by several other large edits by the 120.1xx.xxx addresses).

IPs:

• 114.121.133.177
• 114.121.128.34
• 114.125.168.132
• 120.164.41.107
• 120.164.42.177
• 120.168.0.64
• 120.168.0.46
• 114.4.21.210
• 120.172.157.226

Mattwo7 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thing is, in the main article I only see it three times in the last eight months or so, and you seem to have it well in hand. I don't really object to the principle of semi-protecting, but I am sometimes more eager to semi-protect than most other admins. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't be forced to repeatedly deal with something that clearly requires administrator attention. Mattwo7 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That's part and parcel for editing here. Those IPs are all over the map, so there's not really much that can be done when the person is clearly coming in from a variety of locations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it not possible that the person is using detectable IP masking or IP randomizing technology? Mattwo7 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Short of a checkuser, there's not any way to tell, and even then, it involves some deep IP magic sometimes. However, we can't go fishing just to try to figure it out, and (as in this case) we generally don't bother when we can hear quacking. We also don't just permanently semi-protect an article. It's frustrating sometimes, but eventually they get bored and go find something else to do. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • And it's probably just a plain old dynamic IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't you block the ISP's involved until they improve their security? It's all from the same country. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Endlessdaze

The above user seems to be here purely for promotional purposes. His only edit, besides drafting an article on an upcoming film and a few tweaks to the article about the director of said film, is replacing the plot of an unrelated movie with the cast list of the movie he is promoting, in an unmistakeably spammy manner. Diff: . EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - I looked through that user's contributions, and while I agree that this looks like a COI / SPA, this account isn't making edits that are blatantly promotional (such as creating G11 articles, adding blatant advertising to the movie, or making spam-bot-like edits). It looks like a {{welcome-coi}} on their talk page is the right first step to take. Remember assume good faith :-) ~Oshwah~ 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User Ms Sarah Welch

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

The user has been repeatedly Uncivil, mocking, gangs up by indulging in Canvassing and Votestacking to scuttle the normal consensus building process, harasses editors by continuously posting on their talk pages for no valid reasons, and engages in unsubstantiated edit-warring (evidence below). Mainly edits Indian religion articles, pushing here own POV (evidence below). I request the user be blocked from any further editing.

• Post from a well established editor MohanBhan here

"Your behavior matches with every single instance of uncivil behavior mentioned there including name calling, inappropriate and repeated use of warning templates, and repeated copy-pasting of out-of-context comments made on different forums. The tone of your comments is unprofessional, mocking and condescending even when you are at fault and have brazenly misquoted citations or modified them to suit your purposes. You have been warned many times for breaching WP:Civil, and for using talk pages (the last being the talk page of Allama Prabhu) to make personal attacks. So please do not write on my talk page. Please see WP:TALKNO."

• Supported on almost every count by another editor here

• Post from Mohanbhan on Sarah Welch's canvassing here

• A latest round of canvassing here, where she writes in the edit summary "@JJ/@Apuldram: please decide if this sentence is WP:DUE here...". Calling out two editors in particular with whom Sarah Welch "collaborates" often. This is not just an instance of canvassing, but serious mockery of the other editors who have been engaging in the recent discussions, as it paints them as worthless folks whose opinion does not count. Please note the tone "JJ/Apuldram please decide if ..." Why should JJ/Apuldram "decide"? (nothing against those two editors) But is this a "Wiki"-pedia or "SW/JJ/Apuldram"-pedia, which Sarah Welch clearly believes. These (and many others as noted by user Mohanbhan above) are classic examples of repeated WP:CANVASS , WP:VOTESTACK , WP:FORUMSHOP

• This preceding post followed what was a completely pointless edit-warring episode by Sarah Welch. She reverted the same well sourced edit multiple times harassing other editors and wasting their time, while also continuously raising false spersions on their credibility: here and here without even checking the source, as eventually acknowledged herself here.

• Further evidence of prior edit-warring on the same article here, acknowledged by another experienced editor Kautilya3.

• Further evidence of harassing users by relentless talk page posting here, where an Admin had to come in and instruct her to stop. - 172.56.38.207 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@172.56.38.207: Are you @Js82 by chance? Your IP is too close to @172.56.42.111, from which someone / @Js82 was harassing me on my talk page last month, for which my talk page was protected for a while by an admin. FWIW, @Js82 was long warned by wiki admins, and blocked by admin Drmies, before I posted on @Js82's talk page. The @Mohanbhan reference you give is old. Are you referring to issues related to wikipedia admin's comment on @Mohanbhan? Indeed, I asked @Apuldram to verify the text you or someone added to Sikhism article, because I could not verify it. @Apuldram too failed to verify. We deleted it. Such collaboration is not vote stacking (there is no RfC voting in progress in Sikhism article you implicitly refer to). In the most recent case, I found the source details incorrect, so corrected it. What is wrong with it? Since you haven't informed all involved parties, let me ping them for you; @Joshua Jonathan:, @Kautilya3: FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked User:Religions Explorer using different sockpuppet IP's

@Nyttend: So...basically 1 week blocked user @Religions Explorer: is clearly socking and being disruptive deleting talk pages again. Please do something admins. --92slim (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another IP too. --92slim (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly blocked user socking (and admitting it)

It gets a bit repetitive to be back for the third day running concerning the highly disruptive user Religions Explorer. On Monday, the user was given a short block , came back yesterday even more disruptive and was blocked for a week . This first lead to a highly uncivil outburst before returning to the same article with different IPs to continue, openly admitting it's the same user, even continuing to sign as Religions Explorer , and declaring not acknowleding the block , . No need to start an SPI as the user admits the sockpuppetry, but I suggest a permanent block on Religions Explorer (three days in a row at ANI) who has shown himself to be extremely disruptive, and to semi-protect Talk:Muhammad for a while given the dynamic IP use. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards