Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 7 February 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Fry1989

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

Fry1989's unblock conditions state that he must not comment on individual editors. "contradicting yourself", "you're blind", "you imply ... a dishonest stretch", "your question is completely facetious", "the most preposterous thing I have ever seen" and an admission that he holds me in contempt are all essentially comments on an editor. Instead of trying to wriggle out of his civility restrictions by saying these are comments on arguments rather than people, shouldn't he be making an effort to avoid any comment that can be construed or misread as a breach? If these are not breaches, may I suggest an extension of the remaining unblock condition for a further 6 months? I am not aware of any breaches of the two expired unblock conditions (on edit summaries and reverts) and so assume that these conditions have been met. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clear break of the civility restriction, and then flat-out lying when confronted with it. Re-block and extend WP:OFFER (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur.  Sandstein  13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree (sigh). The first diff says a source is contradicting you. The second one is subjective and certainly battleground mentality but I think it falls short of a personal attack. "You must think Emma Stone is hot, unless your blind." It's more of a "how could you miss that" rather than "your an idiot." Third one, I think you're being dishonest by using ellipsis instead of the comma. It changes the context completely. Four diff, he is talking about your question and not you. Fifth diff, same opinion as fourth. Last diff, big whoop. I hold several people in contempt.

  All that said, he's displaying a battleground mentality that is clearly against the spirit of the unblock conditions and I'd support a block.--v/r - TP 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to talk about lying (simply pointing out a fact here), I have never actually called anybody "blind" (read the link), or any sort of attack that has been interpreted as such. I already acknowledged to another user how my words could be seen in that manner of being attacks, but that was not my intent. Yes I commented on other users, but in the context of replying to their replies in what is a very difficult and heated discussion. Anyhow, I'm not gonna keep fighting an uphill battle, do as you wish. Block me for a while, don't block me for a while, make me stay away from certain things, it doesn't matter at this point cause I give up. Fry1989 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DGAF to ANI approach, eh? You'd be better off just apologizing and offering to try harder. I already made your arguments for you.--v/r - TP 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not the DGAF approach, it's a capitulation because I've tried very hard to follow my restrictions, and while yes I break them some times it's not intentional. I'm sorry, is that what you want to hear? That I'm sorry for insulting people when that wasn't my intent? I have a flair for hyperbole, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone at sight. Yes I'm sorry that I broke the spirit of my restrictions, and I said block me or don't, cause it's hardly my choice, but I have no interest in fighting this AN/I because there's no point. I made a mistake and should have been more restrained, what happens because of that is my fault. Fry1989 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you acknowledge (which you just did), redact, and try to stifle the hyperbole a bit (I do it too, so don't think you're alone) then I think we can shake hands and move on. Can't we, Dr Kiernan?--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But I do think it wise to extend the remaining unblock condition for a further period because the other two unblock conditions appear to have worked, and so I feel it likely that the third condition might work if it is given more time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has significant control problems, as he himself acknowledges here and has acknowledged in the past. His latest comments may or may not be a breach of civility, but they do more than violate the "spirit" of the civility condition. As Dr.Kiernan pointed out in the beginining, they breach the second bullet point of the civility condition, "commenting on individual editors". I agree with Dr.Kiernan that the remaining block condition should be extended; that certainly beats an indefinite block, which is what a violation of the condition provides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That seems fair and reasonable.--v/r - TP 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair, yes. However, Fry cannot expect this to happen again. This is not a 3-strikes situation. Reset the 6 months. The NEXT one is it; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, Bwilkins, but a lot of discussion and effort went into these condtions by User:Amatulic (the lion's share), Fry, me, and by Dr.Kiernan, who, as I recall, was the most aggrieved by some of Fry's conduct. As Dr.Kiernan says above, progress has been made, and the principal goal should be to foster improvement. My sense - then and now - is that Fry is an honest person who sincerely wants to improve his conduct. Strictly speaking, a lapse should result in an indefinite block, but if being a bit more flexible resolves the problem and retains a useful editor, I think we should be open to that. I'm waiting to hear what Fry has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're arguing the same point here ... aren't we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but if you do, I'm good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I asked a direct question? I'm doing a training thing today so I'm in and out. Now this is obviously not the only reason I'm here today, I have troubles with other users at time too, but DrKiernan is the elephant in my situation. He and I are like cats and dogs, and I've made it no secret I don't want to be involved with him, and I've put in every effort recently to avoid it. I don't watch his talk page and I don't edit things he's active on. He however followed me on to that discussion uninvited by myself or the others involved. He has also followed me around on other things I'm involved with, and on Commons. I suggested some time ago an interaction ban between the two of us and that was called premature. Now is any of this an excuse for things I have said? Absolutely not, but it is the reality that he and I can not work together collegially, and I hold resentment about it because every time we do interact, our butting heads blows up and then I have to deal with this. It's happened three times, and I'm as tired of it as anybody else. This is not an attempt to skew the issue and change the subject, it is a part of this problem that we don't get along, and I've put in all my effort to avoid him. Can he say the same? I said what I said, it was wrong, it broke the spirit of my restrictions, I take accountability for it, but it never would have gotten that far if he and I didn't fight every time we encounter each other. Fry1989 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re TParis, unless I'm missing something, personal attacks don't come in to it. The unblock conditions say they must not comment on individual editor except in appropriate noticeboards. It doesn't say anything about personal attacks. I presume this condition, while harsh, was imposed because the community or whoever no longer trusts them to comment on editors and/or to avoid disputes oer what sort of comments on editors are acceptable. In other words, if any of these are comments on editors, it doesn't matter if they →are positive, innocous, borderline personal attacks or clear cut personal attacks they're clearly a violation. Now if the comments are genuinely positive and didn't cause any offene to the editors cncerned, it would be foolish to block them. But if and editor does disagree with comments on them, it would seem we have a problem. I haven't looked at the comments so can't say whether the comments are bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My summary of the diffs is that they were not talking about Dr. K but about their comments; with the exception of diff 2 maybe. However, what I see is discussion. Unless you consider "your source contradicts you" to be about a person and not the source then I don't think the letter of the sanction is violated. Which is why I said the spirit of it was. Context helps with the diffs provided, and in the case of the third diff, an ellipsis is used instead of a comma which doesn't make sense to me other than to change the context. The comma takes less characters and is actually in the diff. It splits the sentence. If you disagree, that's fine, it's just my take and my take has seemed to lead us down the path to deescalation.--v/r - TP 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(@Bbb23) Unhelpful? Maybe, and it wouldn't be the first time my outlook has been wrong, but I am simply stating how I feel. If there's one indisputable fact here, it's that he and I don't play nice together. You can blame the reasons for that on one of us or both, but it remains a fact. I have said before many times that I want him to "leave me alone" (infact I have quite loudly exclaimed it on my talk page), I asked for an interaction ban (that was not even given consideration), and I've put in my due effort to avoid him. But somehow, DrKiernan seems to quite frequently "drop by" on pages I'm involved with where he has had absolutely no previous involvement and was not invited by anybody. Recently it has been happening on Commons as well, where DrKiernan is rarely active. You'll forgive me if I doubt the serendipity of it. I accept what I said and that it was inappropriate, but unless you have had as frequent and negative of interactions with a signle user as I have had with DrKiernan, please don't be so quick to reject the notion as me overreacting. As for the suggestion that I should unilaterally "move on" if he comes into something I'm involved in, surely you understand the implications of that, giving him to power to just impose himself on anything I'm working on forcing me to leave. I don't like that suggestion, and I don't think any other user who feels like their being followed around would like it either. Fry1989 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, in my view and in the view of some others (perhaps not TP), you have violated the civility conditions of your unblock. Some of the diffs DrKiernan set forth are weaker than others, but there's enough there to constitute more than one violation. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that DrKiernan is hounding you (that's essentially what you're claiming), it wouldn't do you a bit of good if we hold you to your conditions. As TP said (implied?) earlier, you should be focused on finding a way to continue editing here. Shifting the focus to DrKiernan won't help you. If you feel so strongly that DrKiernan is hounding you, then separately you should be asking for some sort of sanctions, an interaction ban or whatever you believe is appropriate. Now is not the time to be doing that unless you are simply so frustrated that you don't care, but most of us know that allowing present frustration to interfere with our long-term desire to edit here is generally self-defeating. Venting may provide some satisfaction, but it's transient and yet you're stuck with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really know the background of Fry1989's restrictions on editing, but what I have witnessed at talk:union badge of Norway and Sweden strikes me as obviously disruptive behavior. Fry has been debating rather ferociously about an article title which is based primarily on personal opinion, not what sources actually say. I can't say I've seen outright personal attacks, but there's plenty of civility gray zones, and above all a tendency of completely disregarding other editor's arguments in favor of home-brewed theories and interpretations. You can see the result for yourself at the article talkpage, but the latest of Fry's edits is very indicative of highly belligerent form of interaction. Peter 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on the validity of my points by calling them "home-brewed theories" (alongside other names I've had to endure) like I'm some conspiracy crackpot is why I'm here in the first place, and I greatly resent your use of the term. Instead of people being willing to discuss my sources and points, they accused me of making things up, and saying that "this word was never use now or ever!" even though I have a very clear sources saying the opposite. It is the shear frustration from being ganged up on like that which causes my ferocity. You don't have to condone the way I carry on my arguments on that page (something I have not attempted to do here in my own defence), but don't pretend I do it just because that's "how I am". It takes a lot to cause me to be so angry and negative. There's plenty of examples of me carrying on arguments in a civil, even cheerful, manner. I have the ability to be very pleasant, polite, and helpful, but when people start accusing me of lying and making things up, that's when my effort to be friendly goes out the door. As for my last edit you linked, no where is there a rule I have to agree with someone. That was completely civil, I said "you can think what you want, but I'm gonna think what I want". Tell me how that is belligerent to "agree to disagree", which is essentially what I said? Fry1989 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, I am very close to getting you a slap on the wrist and a gentle shove to be on your way instead of an indefinite block. For Pete's sake, don't screw it up.--v/r - TP 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing on that page any longer. I said that they can think what they want, and I'll stick to what I think, essentially "agree to disagree", and I've stated on my talk page that I will no longer be engaging on that article's talk page. But calling my sources and points "home-brewed theories" was out of order. Decide what you want to do about me, and I'll accept and deal with it accordingly, but if you're worried of me screwing it up by continuing to an unreceptive crowd, you'll be happy to know that will not take place. Fry1989 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restrictions are put into place to improve Misplaced Pages, not be tripwire sanctions used in content disputes. As TP has already elucidated, the diffs presented are very ticky tacky to be indeffing an editor over. Looking at the history, it appears Fry was editing the article and talk page long before DrK, and DrK raised the restriction two weeks ago on the talk page and yet continued to engage Fry. The issue isn't really Fry's incivility but their tendentious editing, but as there was no support for his position all that was required was to let them have the last word, but since DrK was "fed up" instead a motley collection of diffs has been presented to indef Fry over not very much. Let's just agree it's time for Fry to move on from that issue and be done with this. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the above. The dispute seemed mostly on topic, and appears to have burnt itself out, somewhat. I apologise if I am interjecting inappropriately. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. The dispute was technically on topic, but it also involved Fry being "angry and negative" about people simply disagreeing. I'm not pushing for a indefinite ban, but I consider the behavior surrounding union badge of Norway and Sweden disruptive enough to deserve a warning.

Peter 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

indeed. A more severe sanction would appear counterproductive, and would demotivate an otherwise productive editor with a good editorial history on a relatively specialised topic. Irondome (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where we are. We almost got to a point of agreeing that there would be no block but there would be a 6-month extension of the civility condition(s). However, Fry did not voluntarily agree to that, and it's not clear to me there's a consensus for it. I believe there was a consensus that Fry violated the unblock conditions (DrK, me, BWilkins, Sandstein, TP (spirit)), but not necessarily a consensus as to the remedy. I believe the only editor who disagrees is NE. The two editors who commented after NE follow up on his characterization of Fry's behavior as "tendentious editing", but although they appear to agree that a block is unwarranted (one wants a warning, one doesn't), they do not really address the issue of the violation. I should point out that a consensus isn't required to block Fry, but given the lengthy discussion, I'm not sure that any admin wants to take that step without a consensus. I know I don't at this juncture, although I am not happy with some of Fry's responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. I meant I agreed with the mildest sanction available, if that is the consensus. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My feelings lean toward the lowest possible sanction that ensures this does not happen again. Fry says he has a "flair for hyperbole" and that needs to be controlled by him (as I said to him, I deal with it too, personally). If a block is the lowest remedy, then so be it, I'll support it if that's the case. If an extension of the conditions and a stern warning and commitment to control himself, that would be preference. I trust you, as you have all of the history behind you, to make a good decision. I'm not sure how involved you are, but if your only involvement is the previous block then I'm fine with you taking action.--v/r - TP 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, and to make my side clear, I'll reiterate that I accept I have broken the spirit of my restrictions before their expiration, and that it wasn't acceptable. My intent and the way things can be seen by others are two separate things, and I need to hold a tighter tongue. As for a remedy, I have no objection to an extension of the restrictions I agreed to, because outside of this incident they have assisted me greatly. If a temporary block is decided on, I'll deal with it, and if not I'll be thankful. Fry1989 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The unblock conditions, while well-intentioned, have turned out, in practice, to be problematic; I've suggested modifications on their talk page. NE Ent 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read, understand, and have no objection. Fry1989 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before Fry's latest posts and NE's suggested revisions, I proposed a resolution at Fry's talk page. We now have two discussions going on, one there and one here. Based on Fry's response above after TP's post, I believe that we could have finished this as it pretty much did everything I asked him to do on his talk page. However, partly based on my bias for simplicity and partly because I don't agree with NE's suggested revisions (at this point I'm not going to go into why), I have advised Fry (on his talk page) that I prefer NOT to implement any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with NE's suggestions. My primary concern is that in the course of discussion with another user, two way communication requires the use of 2nd person language and I am concerned that such use is considered "talking about someone." As long as we're clear that talking to someone and talking about someone's comments is not the same as talking about someone, then I think we can continue with the current wording.--v/r - TP 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • While I'm waiting to close this, I thought I'd respond to your comment, with which I agree, with a simplistic example of a hypothetical Fry communication: Acceptable: "I don't agree with John Doe's changes to the article because the source is unreliable." Unacceptable: "John Doe's changes to the article are dumb because the source is unreliable."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The second one is the gray area that concerns me. It's saying the changes are dumb. I might be over-analyzing and the 2nd one certainly violates the spirit of the rule, but I'd say the existing rules cover "John Doe is dumb because the source is unreliable."--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I intentionally phrased the unaccceptable example the way I did (as opposed to "John Doe is dumb", which I think is clear-cut) for two reasons. First, I wanted to err on the side of avoiding problems for Fry in the future. The unacceptable example is gray, and I didn't want to get into an endless battle later on wikilawyering such a phrase to death. Second, I think editors generally should avoid the second example. It's true that you're not calling the editor dumb, you're calling their actions dumb, and one can be smart and still do something dumb, but saying something someone does is dumb is often a politically correct proxy for calling them dumb. Moreover, it's simply not necessary. There's no reason why everyone can't convey their point using the acceptable example.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then.--v/r - TP 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Agreed. I'm fairly certain Fry is paying attention to all the comments, but depending on the outcome, which is now less clear, we can make sure he understands. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • In John Doe's changes to the article are dumb John Doe's is a possessive determiner modifying the noun "changes"; thus the crux of the sentence is changes are dumb which is assuredly not referring to another contributor. Which just goes to show how, agreements that seem reasonable when agreed to often, in practice, become difficult to implement when the penalty is so all or nothing. NE Ent 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Remedy. I've revised the unblock conditions, the effect of which is to extend the civility conditions an additional 6 months from their current expiration date. I'll leave this thread open in case someone notices a mistake. I've also asked Fry to look at them. Assuming there's no error, this discusion will be closed (with thanks for everyone's help).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies - I'm overseas and have limited time to access Misplaced Pages. As one of the authors of the civility restrictions, I agree that their interpretation (while seeming clear at the time) have become problematic. I believe that further exploration of clarifying the restrictions should be explored as NE Ent has done. The restrictions weren't intended as a hair-trigger re-block mechanism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  At this point, I'd still like to close this incident with the revised conditions. They don't involve a block, and they put to rest this incident and this thread. In addition, there's no reason why the conditions can't be revised again based on NE's suggestions - or anyone else's - to make them clearer and/or fairer. That said, based on your comment, I'm not closing this now. I want to see if there's agreement on closing first. I will be going off-wiki soon, so I probably won't be around until late afternoon tomorrow (American Pacific time). It seems dubious to me that there will be agreeement to close this before I go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Restoring from archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion was archived due to inactivity. Unfortunately, it left Fry in limbo as I'd revised their unblock conditions, which are still outstanding. I am going to close this now as resolved based on the revised unblock conditions. Per TP's comment above, I will let Fry know of the closure and make sure he "understands that's what is intended". If Amatulic or NE wants to re-raise the issue of revising the conditions further, they are welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:NickCochrane

NickCochrane appears to have a serious COI issue with promoting old-school film over digital photography. Despite several editors reverting his biased edits, he carries on making them, either removing whole swathes of text from articles, or adding in biased comments.

• POV-pushing edits/AfD diffs:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Film look

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Filmlook

(there are lots more)

• POV-pushing major deletions (without consensus)

He is currently under a SPI at present with another user who does exactly the same things (this SPI is on hold pending further investigation). See here.

Due to the constant POV-pushing, I feel that Nick should be permanently topic-banned from editing anything to do with digital photography and digital video, even if the SPI ends up taking a lenient action against him. If you want me to present more diffs here, then I will - there are dozens and dozens of them. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not POV edits, they are all sourced with reliable sources. NickCochrane (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh really? "You are violating NPOV if you think VIDEO can be matched to look like FILM" is not a POV-pushing edit summary in itself? Let alone the fact that particular edit itself did not contain a single source, regardless of reliableness. Several people have pointed out that your sources are not reliable, due to them being insufficiently independent, or, often, being blogs. Regardless OF the sourcing, your edits are constantly anti-digital and heavily pro-film, adding in mentions to film's "strengths" that are totally irrelevant to the article in question. Frequently. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• They are not "Anti-digital" edits, they are balanced conclusions from actual sources. If something is higher quality, than it is. End of statement. It's not opinion, it's fact. NickCochrane (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Except, it's not neutral, balanced or even approaching that. You're adding mentions to standard film to articles where it has absolutely no place whatsoever - like at High Frame Rate. That's POV pushing, and inexcusable. Your sources exist, yes, but not one has been a reliable one. They're all connected to film-making companies (e.g. your Kodak sources), blogs, forum posts or some tabloidy things. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And you know full well I'm not the only editor who has questioned your COI and/or edits - Oakshade, Edokter, etc. Also, I've detected a change you made to try and get Film look deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, I DID NOT move the name to get it deleted. I moved it to the more common name and then on second thought nominated the article. Give it a rest, every edit I do you think I'm doing something wrong. What's next? I created an article today about a photographer - is that some CONSPIRACY? Jeez, I can't get a break from over-zealous editors like you and Oakshade this week. NickCochrane (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't move it for that reason. You "can't get a break" because we keep finding edits that are borderline vandalism, and show your COI very strongly. The only place your "film is better than digital mkay" type ideas have any place is in the talk page for the article about Digital versus film photography. NOT in an article about High Frame Rate, because that has precisely 3 shades of cow manure to do with film's "better quality". Lukeno94 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural note - Perhaps this is better suited for Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought, this is as much a incident reporting as NPOV, so it should remain here.--Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with the Lukeno94. One of the fundamental tenants of this or any encyclopedia is writing in a neutral point of view. That's why Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a strict policy. In particular WP:NPOV states in bold "Avoid stating opinions as facts".

As digital video has become extremely of high quality and continues to evolve, there's now strong contention as to what format is "superior." "Superior" is in quotes because it's a subjective opinion. For example, some viewers like the extreme sharpness of high-res video and some prefer the old exposure rendering of film. But digital video has become so advanced, it's become a multi-billion dollar industry with many major studios choosing to shoot on digital video rather than film, like the films The Avengers (2012 film), Zero Dark Thirty and Hugo (film).

But what user:NickCochrane is doing is simply "film is superior to video" POV edits, like in the High Frame Rate article. And his "references" have all been opinionated blogs, several year old articles from when video was only developing or even, I'm not making this up, Kodak, a company that SELLS FILM STOCK. It's very easy to find "references" that say video is superior to film. Here are a few after a quick search

It's okay for NickCochrane to have a "film is better than video" opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. I'm personally neutral on the topic. Once again per our policy of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts"

It should also be noted that there's a Sockpuppet case regarding NickCochrane Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane where, after two Checkusers conducted, the consensus is that NickCochrane is either using sockpuppets or meatpuppets (a block is likely to occur), so we don't exactly know who we're dealing with here. --Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oakshade, you're much more eloquent/better at putting the point across than I am! Lukeno94 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nick is still re-adding biased information into articles: He reverts my edit here, and is then re-reverted by Algr here. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• And again:. Can an admin deal with this ASAP? We're dangerously close to an edit war (well, he certainly is), if we aren't in one already, and I really, really don't want to be - although his posts are borderline vandalism, so I don't want to step back either. 3 separate people have removed his WP:NPOV-violating comments and he STILL doesn't get the picture. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing at Michael Milken

Over at Michael Milken (one of the big-name financial crooks of the 1980s), we have some paid editing by LarryWeisenberg (talk · contribs). This editor writes "My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken." His edits generally try to de-emphasize Mr. Milken's criminal record (he did Federal prison time, and now he's out). The current issue started when an anon put "ex-con" in the lede paragraph, and it was removed at "Revision as of 17:35, 23 December 2012 LarryWeisenberg (Removing derisive term that brings negative POV to the article.)" . I suggested using "convicted criminal" instead. Weisenberg didn't like that. So that's out, but I put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox (which is just a bio infobox, not a criminal infobox). Weisenberg didn't like that either. The general trend of these edits seems to be to keep any mention of the criminal history out of the snippet Google displays on searches, and to add various minor items that make Milken look good.

WP:NOPAY would seem to apply. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is this guy to dictate how the article should look? Seems like owning to me by the way he disagrees with you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Many many people have been convicted of crimes at various times in their lives. If those convictions are relevant to that person's notability, we include them in their article. Milken's convictions clearly are relevant and are discussed in the body of the article. Putting things like Federal prisoner number or convictions in the infobox are inappropriate, violate our WP:NPOV policy, and suggest that you are editing with an agenda. Whatever crime a person has been convicted of, please try to remain neutral when editing their biography. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to have "convicted criminal" be the very first way an article defines him. That doesn't actually tell us what he did for a living. Strangesad (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, I've fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move forward on that same vein and remove any indication of player/jersey numbers for hockey, soccer, football, baseball and all other sports? Wayne Gretszky look out. I don't see how a number he wore is a problem. Are negative items not allowed. There are some nice things about him in the article. If he is notable for more than his prison conviction, is there a COI in promoting the person's new interests? Makes me wonder if the article should just be removed as not notable. Do we mention every convict or would that be a violation of WP:BLP. Look at the follow up stalking in article Karla Homolka after she was released broadcasting her trail. Nobody is complaining there. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There is no prisoner number in the infobox of Karla Homolka, and if there was, I would remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Any user who admits to being a paid editor should have some setting changed on their account to prohibit editing articles from then on. We need to force these people to only use the talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That might make sense if there was a policy that said "paid editing is not allowed". There isn't. And there never will be, now that paid editors and PR professionals have established a firm foothold, thanks to the concerted efforts of some Wikipedians. And more and more people seem to be leveraging their status on Misplaced Pages into paid "consulting" work. The writing has been on the wall for years, but in the last 18 months things have taken a major turn for the worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If they did see fit to do so we would have to ban a few of the Foundation employees as well as the Dear Leader himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should be more concerned about the type of editors who insist on tagging every living person ever convicted of a crime as an "ex-con" or "criminal" in the first sentence of their bio than someone making a dime off removing that kind of material.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

while I agree that very few people come here only to make suggestions on talk pages, paid editors do have a COI and our wp:coi guideline actively discourages direct editing by editors with a conflict of interest. A useful guideline IMO because it makes paid editing and COI editing less combative. --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have already pointed this out, but let's make sure there is no confusion about it. Milkin isn't notable for being a convicted criminal. He was very involved with junk bonds, but it is highly misleading to say he was part of the junk bonk scandal. The article should not avoid saying he was convicted, but it should be balanced, with discussion of his contributions as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Miliken was very much involved in the junkl bond scandal, and did serve time and paid a humongous fine for it. It's hardly a trvial part of his biography and needs to be dealt with, but in a neutral manner. Leaving it out does not serve the interests of our readers and makes the encycylopedia that much less valuable. The question is not whether it should be in, but how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given. Labelling him a "convicted criminal" in the infobox is too much, but the lede should include it, as it was a significant event both in his life and in the history of stocks and bonds trading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a "behaviorial guideline" that says paid editing is prohibited, WP:NOPAY. What is the status of WP:NOPAY from an enforcement point of view? Are editors blocked for that? I'd thought they were; we had a big flap over this a few months ago on another topic. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOPAY does not say that paid editing is prohibited. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a guideline. It is not actionable. People can be pointed to it, but admins who block or warn for it are off base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The junk bonk scandal? That would be interesting...! Britmax (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw another voice of agreement in here - the criminal conviction is a secondary feature of the thing he was notable for, and defining him primarily as a criminal is definitely showing a slant! We have a lot of articles that tend to creep this way over time (see eg/ the discussion on Talk:Robert Tappan Morris); I wonder if there's any efficient way we could start digging out some of these long-running BLP issues? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started. This was an outrageous edit for someone supposedly interested in compromise, and if it's indicative of John Nagle's typical attitude towards BLPs then he shouldn't be editing anywhere near them. Couple that with an apparently large misunderstanding of what precisely our rules on COI and paid editing are (I note a trouting from Dear Leader over this wholesale reverting of sourced content, for instance, because of the identity of the responsible editor) and we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry" who pays someone to edit Misplaced Pages to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Misplaced Pages want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months back, Misplaced Pages seemed to be taken a much harder line on paid editing. Wikimedia UK chair Roger Bamkin lost his job for paid editing. What changed? Is paid editing OK now? --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Roger Bamkin did not lose his "job", he resigned a volunteer position. In fact, he kept the job which had placed him in a conflict of interest as a trustee of Wikimedia UK. He continues to edit here, continues to participate in WMUK (although not as a trustee), and continues to run his business. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest someone close this, as this article now has more eyes and it appears no acmin action will ooccur as a result of this report.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, Lgr. By the way, I have added the Wikiproject Criminal Biography template to the article's talk page so that that WikiProject may be included in this discussion. I also submit that we take a look at Nagle's question, which I find of great merit. For the record, I have grave doubts that paid editing is good for this project in any way. Jusdafax 07:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And what about countering paid editing by mass-reverting any edits assumed to be from paid accounts, even where those edits are to remove egregious BLP violations? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. I go away for a few days, and the Michael Milken article has gone through a whitewash, rinse, and dry cycle. The "infobox criminal" has disappeared. Details of the criminal activity have been removed to de-emphasize his crimes. Paid editing works! John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • • I made a couple of changes and brought the criminal stuff back in. I agree that the article shouldn't downplay what he is probably best known for (would most of us have heard of Milken if he were merely the inventor of high-yield bonds?) but that needs to be balanced against the other stuff that he is now known for. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Progressive utilization theory

User:Abhidevananda has written a lengthy section in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#RFCs or just another attack suggesting that my opening of an Rfc on that talk page was done in bad faith. My preference is to have an administrator close that thread (as it is not entirely relevant to the article) and suggest a more appropriate forum to Abhidevananda in which his or her grievances toward me can be addressed. (I guess a review with brief comment on whether or not things seem to be in order with the Rfc would be welcome, too.) Thanks! Location (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Anyway, the issue here in brief: for last 2 months so we are trying to solve content dispute. Few users think the article is full of primary sources and is more a manifesto than an encyclopedic entry, other group of editors think these sources are required in this article.
The article has been fully protected twice, first time for 1 week, second time for 1 month. We are trying to reach a consensus before 18 February (that day 1 month full protection will end). Changing header to just "Progressive utilization theory --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Civil pov-pushing, editwarring, misuse of sources, and lengthy talkpage diatribes should be called out for what they are. I would invite uninvolved editors to look at the recent history of the article and decide for themselves whether it's better to have Abhidevananda's version, or the version supported by a bunch of uninvolved editors who commented following the last NPOV noticeboard thread... since the wrong version is protected this time, nothing need change at the end of protection until some other editor is bold enough to try removing unsourced or fringey content, which will be immediately followed by a revert. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Abhidevananda and their 2 allies at the article are acting in good faith, do not understand how Misplaced Pages works, and sincerely feel persecuted. They are also defending a version which (unbeknownst to them) in violation of a range of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and a 100 miles away from being an encyclopedic article. They have also managed to stop efforts to fix the article. What is needed is for a few more people to tell Abhidevananda this, and then to unlock the article while a few more persons familiar with wikipedia guidelines and policies and enclyclopedic articles visit there for a few weeks and help fix it. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:FT/N discussions on PROUT and its creator here and here. Almost every article related to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar is stuffed full of primary-sourced material, with notability problems left and right; and this template evinces an intent to create two or three times more articles than already exist. At the moment the major evidence for Sarkar's notability is the Ananda Marga organization, which has had some political involvement, and a PROUT economist at SMU who made a prediction which got him on the NYT bestseller list and the earned him an Ignobel. Bringing this balloon back to earth is heavily inhibited by a group of crusading SPAs who don't really seem to have a grip on what this project is about. It would be useful to have one of these people working from secondary sources (because the proliferation of Sarkar works tends to mask everything else) but if they can't learn to play by the rules, we are going to have to cut drastically. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I made an attempt to talk to User:Cornelius383 at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ananda Vacanamrtam after about a dozen similar AfD's were tagged with the same comment from him and User:Abhidevananda. The comments were very critical of the community, censorship & conspiracy directed, and not relating to the actual AfD, the article, or the problems other editors have cited over policy concerns. Incivility has been noted by a few editors such as User:Garamond Lethe at User:Abhidevananda#Time to turn it down a notch. I have to agree with User:North8000's comment about them likely feeling extremely persecuted and not being aware of the consequences of their actions and how wiki-policy works. On the other hand, there are AfD's from last week where editors tried to explain to them the process and I've seen no sign or attempt from either editor to show a willingness to look at the policies. As noted at the SPI, I find the possibility of WP:MEATPUPPETRY worrying. Mentorship and talking has already been offered. Unless this is some sort of new tactic I don't foresee having a time-effective third offer to explain things be a meaningful option that will likely net any result. Mkdw 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just made another try at explaining to Abhidevananda what might be more efficient methods of making defendable articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) .

I am beginning to believe that some sort of action needs to be taken. For example, anyone attempting to resolve the dispute in PROUT is met with wall-of-text replies claiming bad faith in any number of ways (e.g. ). What are our options? Location (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most effective action will be to find consensus on the minor articles. Once they are dealt of, the RfC on the remaining major ones can reach conclusion. I would urge those who think the whole overall subject nonsense to not try to eliminate everything, or almost everything. AfD can, after all, carry out an enforceable redirect or merge, but this requires there remaining some sort of main article. This has not yet spread into other subjects, as some causes have, so the disruption is limited. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, several more book articles that I expect to nominate for deletion (although I'm going to turn down the rate so as to give the folks at AfD a bit of a rest). Once those are nominated I'll be looking at the rest of the peripheral articles. However, I would be opposed to trying to delete the Sarkar bio article, PROUT or Ananda Marga. All three of those articles have massive issues, but they're all notable and fixable. GaramondLethe 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A refusal to get WP:REDLINK

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

Here you deleted a ship link. These are valid links, given that naval ships are continued article worthy, an article will one day be written. And again here. As a Member of Parliament the subject will one day have an article, one just hasn't been written yet. Here you deleted another one, which left a mangled mess of wiki formatting, and here is another example of this. Here you delete a perfectly valid blue link for some reason. And here you actually add a couple of links that are textbook cases of WP:OVERLINKING.

• I looked at all the diffs you supplied on the user's talk page, and I agree with your analysis. This has been pointed out to RichardMills often enough and it should stop. As far as I'm concerned, this is disruptive enough to warrant rollback and a block if it continues. It's a bit odd--RichardMills responded positively to earlier messages, but there's nothing in response to the many messages about redlinks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • He's back at it, again the same slapdash approach, removing in this case a red link from an article, but not the infobox. I had hoped his response to previous posts would mean he might modify his behaviour, but he seems to be going it alone now despite the warnings. Benea (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I endorse Benea's analysis. The user appears to be actively deleting perfectly valid redlinks (i.e., those whose subjects are clearly notable) at this very moment, despite the numerous messages left on his talk page explaining why this is inappropriate and asking him to stop, and despite notification about this ANI thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for a day for this edit. He went on removing a redlink after Chris had warned him about a possible block. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

His other edits seem problematic as well—for example, he's adding citations to sources which don't actually support the claim in question. I just raised this issue with him though it would be great if others could help review (and revert if necessary) his recent reference-related edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this as well. His edit here to add a reference to British band Redwood (band) was actually the website http://www.theredwood.com/ which is for a Canadian women's shelter. His edits need careful scrutiny as this is more disruptive than it first appeared. Benea (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's bad. Is he perhaps Googling the topics and mindlessly adding references to the first page which comes up? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See also this edit where he added a reference to Google Books, citing this book while there's a big disclaimer that it is primarily made up of Misplaced Pages content. So apparently he doesn't even check his sources. Has this behaviour come up only recently or is it a long-term pattern? If it was rather new I'd actually consider a compromised account. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard says he's a high school teacher, so it's a definite possibility that his account has been compromised. It would also explain his total lack of response and communication recently. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that way. Mindless would be the way to describe his current editing pattern. He's doing two things and he's doing them badly, to the extent that it's a net loss to the project in having to clear up after him. If when he comes back from the block he actually takes time to engage, I hope he will put more thought into his edits. At the moment he's making them very quickly, and without reference to other users' input. Benea (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have shown up now and will have a look.

Based on edit summary use, it looks to be the same person, but the lack of response to talk page messages is uncharacteristic. Also the low quality references looks uncharacteristic. Perhaps it is someone pretending to be a teacher. Earlier there were summaries like ‎"deleted wiki link" but now is not bothering to say what is happening. But I think a block will attract attention, but I would encourage a meaningful discussion on the user talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's wait and see if yesterday's one-day block shows any effect of getting Richard back into communication. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It has in fact worked. On his user talk page, Richard has now apologised for the inconvenience he caused and has promised to edit more carefully in the future. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, the account is not compromised and the block has expired, so I suppose this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina

• Original title of this thread: Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina from WP:SPAs evading semi-protection & suspected creation of new WikiProject as part of the disruption

G'day all, back in December there was significant disruption to a number of article talk pages relating to Vojvodina by a new user User:Oldhouse2012. This resulted in a report here specifically about the editors behaviour at Talk:History of Vojvodina, and an ARBMAC warning was issued to User:Oldhouse2012 by User:EdJohnston here . User:Oldhouse2012 then fell off the face of the earth. The disruption to the article (this time by two IPs) re-commenced in mid-January , and and User:EdJohnston protected the page on 23 January here . User:Brianyoumans was subjected to some personal attacks and abuse by these IPs here

On 31 January a new user User:Baća bez gaća registered, joined a number of WikiProjects that had previously been subject to the banner disruption on Talk:History of Vojvodina (a total of ten edits), waited four days then began the same disruption of the talkpage as User:Oldhouse2012. During early discussion with this new editor by User:Brianyoumans (who was involved in dealing with the disruption earlier) another new account User:Foodsupply appeared to support User:Baća bez gaća. A quick look shows that User:Foodsupply was created on 29 January and did ten edits that day. When four days had expired this new editor's first edit was to support User:Baća bez gaća at Talk:History of Vojvodina here .

The two new accounts appear to be either new WP:SPAs created by the disruptive IPs to continue that activity or socks/meat of User:Oldhouse2012. In particular, User:Baća bez gaća's behaviour and comments are highly reminiscent of Oldhouse2012.

Could I please get some admin attention on this? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said!Brianyoumans (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC done . Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have another potential sock to add to the pile: User:AnyWay5000. Created on January 30th, the very first edit on the account was to create a WP:Kingdom of Hungary.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Brian. I thought it was highly convenient that WikiProject was created just as this was happening. I'm just offended that these people think we're THAT dumb. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should add the creation of WP:Kingdom of Hungary by User:AnyWay5000 to the report (per Brianyoumans). This really needs some attention. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can a CU please take a look and give a verdict on the Sockpuppetry issue please? Mdann52 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I just would like to add that this distruption may be much deeper than it first looks. For the record, it was me who first added the project banners at first to articles like history of ... , battle of ... and so (territories that were ruled by Hungary or battles it participated in, etc.) a long time ago. For a good long period it was okay, however, when I started to add to articles that are some way related to Serbia, Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) popped up from nowhere and began its action. At first removed the banners, then, after realized that it won't work, started to overtag the articles. S/he was not shy to stalk me and come after me even into the category space (how else could you answer this). Recently, IPs started to remove the overtags paying special attention to inculde WP:HU into these removal actions (in the category space or in the article space).

Not much later, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs) - most of them looked to have created to prove his/her point. (interestingly s/he came up from nowhere, and as a brand new account started quite "mature" actions like creating categories, despite s/he was supposed to be a complete newcomer - sockpuppet?).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these new categories were found improper. I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles in the list, however, just after a short while these were also arbitrarily removed (most of them by an IP (79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I brought the issue to ANI that time, even went to the DRN, however, Account2013 and the IPs who countinued his/her action after s/he stepped down, remained silent and even the DRN was dropped because of the lack of interest. While I cannot force the other side to participate in a discussion (actually probably could do if I would re-add those, though it would generate an edit war or whatever, which i don't want), it is kind of suspicious that I have a "fan" who tries to prevent everything I do. I don't know how much possible it is, but would like to draw someone's attention on these, if I did not manage to do earlier, and get a solution on these (renaming the category/adding it to articles/re-add the list article to the related settlement articles) and ask some experienced users to have an eye on these as it's likely that further actions will be necessary.

Thanks for your time and just drop a line for further details if needed — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Thehoboclown for the new data. It looks to me that this will be a long-running issue and a filing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations may be best. For convenience I would suggest Oldhouse2012 as the master. I hope that one of the parties will have the patience to create an SPI report. If blocks turn out to be needed, a link to the SPI will provide a guide for further review. For the overall pattern of ethnic warring, a report at WP:Long term abuse is another option. Though it would be hard to show if all these guys are socks or meats, they do have a well-defined common interest -- erasing the significance of the current or historical non-Serbian minorities in Vojvodina. I shortened the header of this thread to simplify future reference to it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny. There is just one question: if I have so many sockpuppets (and listed accounts are not blocked) then why I had to wait 4 days to edit semi-locked page with this user name? Why I simply haven't used one of mine supposed sockpuppets? There are 6 million people in Serbia and you suggest that one person operates all Serbian accounts in Misplaced Pages. Besides this, both Peacemaker67 and Thehoboclown are nationalist POV pushers themselves. I suggest that their behavior is examined too. Baća bez gaća (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Ed. Thanks again for the advice. I'll handle the actions you've suggested. And @Thehoboclown, thanks very much for the info. I completely understand your frustration, I'll be in touch if I need any more data. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Great advice Ed. SPI checks out per . I have already WP:MFD'd WP:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary. I suppose we can resume normal operations, sans our new friends. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts, Peacemaker! Too bad it took one minute (!) to remove the info you reinserted. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked all the CU-confirmed socks who had accounts per the SPI case. But due to the section below about Srbobran, there may be more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, EdJohnston, there is something more you can do. you can examine pattern of behaviour of editors like Thehoboclown or Peacemaker67 and you will see that they are agressive POV-pushers too and they waste large amount of their time in Misplaced Pages in POV revert wars. they try not to make any page better or neutral but they revert war because they want that they POV prevail over POV of others. if sanctions arent imposed on them too, I affraid, this war in Misplaced Pages will never stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.127.0.177 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and threats on Srbobran

This might or might not be the same clique, but the topic is the same: 113.193.187.226 (talk · contribs) first tried to erase official Hungarian name of Vojvodinian town of Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and when I reverted and warned him under WP:ARBMAC, I got this nice tirade . Google translate with my fixes:

What the fuck? Srbobran is the Serbian city. Why are you supporting the Hungarian fascists who killed Serbs and threw them under the ice. This here is a real Hungarian fascist whose account is blocked on Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Srbobran&diff=535767619&oldid=532170630 Why are you doing this? And besides, do you think you'll be able to keep this article to the end of life there ? You're pushing the stone up the hill, but will certainly fall down. Understand that you can not do anything, they can block this IP or temporarily lock the article, but it does not help. You have no idea who I am and who I work for, and so I say it's better that you do not interfere in such a way. 113.193.187.226 ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess a permanent semi-protection and a heavy block is in order. No such user (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is very similar to the language used on my talk page by an IP, except that they used English. See User_talk:Brianyoumans#Notification (Serbia). (I added (Serbia) to make it unique.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please get some admin help here? This is the same bunch of loonies all over the place. I feel like I'm playing Whac-A-Mole at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy days, SPI checked out. Not sure about your IP though, Nsu. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Now Nado158 (talk · contribs) has stepped into the revert game . Sorry, but I don't think that this is a mere content dispute: it is pure nationalist POV-pushing. Can an admin hand out a WP:ARBMAC warning, I don't want to play a defender. I might be close to 3RR. No such user (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• • No such user: I have proposed a compromise at Talk:Srbobran. I'm not sure the Hungarian name needs to be in the infobox, or even should be, but it deserves to be prominent. You are definitely in an editing war and have probably violated 3RR yourself; maybe you should have called for help sooner? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As a small addition, Nado158 was active in this "removing-game" in the Subotica article (check the article history focusing on early December), however, that time it was solved quickly thanks to Iadrian yu (talk · contribs), who was there to patrol the article, re-add the name which was countinously removed, and even gave an explanation for the inclusion. That time it looked that Nado158 understood it and after a few tries he dropped the action.

The next time his/her name appeared on my watchlist came when s/he, hand in hand with one of the above mentioned IP started to remove the links to the communitly list article. (, , ). This was the time when I went on to submit an ANI report, pointing out that his/her actions might fall under WP:ARBEE (so his latest action was not his first when s/he went probably too far). However, I got only a dismissive answer, subsequently Nado158 did not even bother to participate in a discussion. As mentioned above, after received no admin reaction, I went to DRN as well to bring them out, however they played it out by simply ignoring it. Seems like s/he did not want to participate and understand the things and don't even mind to learn from his past actions. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleground tactics and gaming by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin

Seven months ago, Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk · contribs) (GotR on talkpages) changed a header in Scarborough Shoal from "Claims by China and Taiwan" to "Chinese claims". I reverted this. GotR then posted in talk and made the edit again, which myself and another editor responded to, and I reverted back to "Claims by China and Taiwan" again. GotR never responded to either post, or otherwise used the talkpage after this.

On 20 January GotR made an edit to the article, with the edit summary "RV edits that could give the impression of being the same government". This "RV" included changing the header to the one they wanted. After an IP changed the header to something else, I reverted back to the stable version on 28 January. After this, GotR made another edit, with the non-descriptive edit summary "Reverted to revision 535088632 by Tarheel95. (TW)", which included the header change. On 4 February I made an edit, restoring the original header (along with the noting in the infobox of China's control of the shoal, which is a separate bit of content arose after another editor noted this control on the talkpage in a post that hasn't been contended). GotR follows this with an edit made with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit, in which they again put in their desired header. When I reverted this 'minor edit', GotR reverted this with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): CMD, your behaviour is outright WP:OWNERSHIP, as I've already made enough concessions, almost enough to seem like a wuss. (TW)". In my response, I said "If you think I own the page take it elsewhere. You're trying to force in your pet title (including with a claim of reversion, after months) while claiming you're making concessions (which is at any rate irrelevant) and accusing others of ownership." Their response was to say "I shouldn't have to point the paragraph beginning with "in 1935" is more concise in my revision, yet you dastardly RV away because it is not how *you* have always liked it". (During the writing of this report, I accidentally clicked the rollback button on their last edit in the article history, which I then rolled back, which is why there are two rollbacks at the top of the article history. Apologies.)

Their last edit completely ignores the header change and accuses me of reverting away because it's not how I have always liked it, which is despite the fact that I explained my position on both the talkpage and in edit summaries, and seems rather WP:POT from someone complaining about how they've had to make concessions. In the meantime they've tried to game the system, using misleading claims of reversions and other unhelpful edit summaries to put in their preferred changes, marked edits as minor when they're clearly not (and this is in no way a new user who doesn't know our guidelines), and responded the reversion of these by accusing me of ownership. This is actually a rather mild incident in the history of a user who has previously directly called another editor "vermin" and has used their userpage to launch their own (quite long) personal attack against me. It is however a good indication that this user is still greatly emotionally invested in the kind of issues which compelled them to launch such blatant personal attacks at earlier points (which I let slide at the time, and I believe others did too, and I'm not aware of any prior reports on this user). That they say they feel like they are going to be seen "like a wuss" in this latest exchange highlights this continued emotional investment, and that they discuss giving concessions shows a rather battleground-minded mentality rather than a consensus-minded one. I'm not allowed to discuss this with the user on their talkpage, as I'm on a list of banned users (despite not having ever actually posted on their talkpage before). GotR has been entangled in this China/Taiwan from almost the beginning of their editing history (their first post on the topic included an allegation of "possibly wilfully deceitful", and as shown above it only went downhill from there), and clearly needs to be separated from it. However, they do a lot of work elsewhere, and I reckon they can be productive away from this area, which seems to push too many of their buttons. CMD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ah, the turncoat", is it (quoting Adm. Gerard DuGalle)? Shall I display the definition of 'concession' or will you tacitly admit forthright that I have made far more of them then you ever were capable of making? Shall I point out that I have deferred to Readin's judgment on naming issues frequently? Need I mention the change of my AWB settings after complaints (not unmerited) by these two? Ought it to go without saying that I removed my tirade against CMD just hours after it was posted and that you have my word that I shall never go to such lengths on my user page again? The list goes on, but now is the work-week, not Friday night when I may have more time to produce evidence. Also, every piece of evidence CMD provides that is not related to the Scarlborough Shoal is old. Seriously old. If there are significantly more editors with this "if it rains today, it most certainly will tomorrow" mindset on this site, I fear for the future of the Project.

Focusing on Scarlborough Shoal, "my last edit" moved away from using 'Chinese claims' in the header and shifted to a metonymic style which is very commonplace in press reports? The "wuss" remark was made because if I had made amends without any second thoughts whatsoever, I would be totally discarding my principles. I am willing to shift attention away from that page provided no reverts are made to the text below the section headers.

Turning matters away from myself, I begin with CMD's sloppy reverts, which have no regard for anything other than the header, are self-evident in their demonstration of article ownership. Then, of course, there's his total refusal, outside of matters dating to or before the KMT retreat to Taipei and China's seat at the UN, to back any naming configuration other than what has been demonstrated to be the highly politically charged "Taiwan is definitely not a part of China". GotR 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CMD. I don't know anything about the incident you mention, but I'd like to say that GotR is an extremely valuable wikipedia contributor (just check out his contributions!), and that I have collaborated with him successfully many times and it's always been an enjoyable experience to work with him. I hope the 2 of you can work this out. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really worried if anyone thinks I'm ignorant on this issue, and in fact I started by stating my own ignorance. The only thing that I am worried about, is when I see a valuable contributor like you, being accused of pretty serious stuff. Hence my intervention. Azylber (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@GotR: I'm capable of engaging in discussion, and I also don't think it'll help you here to open with yet another personal attack (and again I note consensus isn't about a balance of concessions). You can mention what you want, but unless you explain how it's relevant, which you haven't, it doesn't mean much, especially as it doesn't address many of the issues I posted above (and yes your last edit didn't put back Chinese claims in, but it was still a totally new header which you again didn't discuss on talk despite opposition. In addition, arguing it should be used based on commonness of press reports is quite poor considering that China and Taiwan are far more common). You removed your tirade because after making it you went and pointed it out to me on another talkpage, after which I noted it was simply a personal attack. That you removed it with "point made" after this doesn't sell good intentions. It has been explained to you, many times, that in the vast majority of the English speaking world speaking of Taiwan as separate from China is simply common practice, and isn't remotely political. It's impressive that after all this time you still don't seem to understand that.

@Azylber: They may well be valuable, as noted I'm not familiar with many of their edits. However, it seems that in this topic area in particular there's a lot of disruptive behaviour, well illustrated in that at the very beginning of their reply above they decide to engage in another attack, alleging that I can't make concessions. CMD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That you fail to acknowledge my numerous other retreats from pure ideology is in itself a statement, even understatement, of your Texas sharpshooter/cherry-picking approach to discussion. That you continue to deny (without diffs) the extent of your obstructionism is troubling. It has been explained to you, CMD, many times, that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming, or anything for that matter, is self-destructive, and that whatever the hell the main articles on the two states officially known as the PRC and the ROC are titled is no licence (in particular I quote Nil Einne) to wage unrelenting name-changing campaigns, even blissfully neglecting any subtleties or details in the process, is far more disruptive than anything I have done. In case anyone has not noticed, I almost solely use common names in text (infoboxes do not count), so the claim I somehow ignore common names all the time is false. GotR 05:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

N.B. Just to note I'm aware I was mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned any retreats from ideology either way. As for any denial I have to make over supposed obstructionism, I haven't seen any diffs showing any obstructive behaviour, and I'm unsure of what exactly I'm obstructing. If I have been on a unrelenting name-changing campaign, I've done a pretty poor job of it (one would suspect if I was on such a campaign, I'd at least try to rename prominent articles like Economy of the People's Republic of China, especially in light that its counterpart is Economy of Taiwan, but I haven't). As for your claim to "almost solely use common names in text", you've been on a streak of article creation, where you use "People's Republic of China" in the article text. Are you going to address the issues I mentioned in my opening post, or just continue to write about me? CMD (talk)

I've already addressed the opening post pretty thoroughly, and I only use "People's Republic of China" for locations in municipal districts and a few subdistricts, so yet again you misrepresent my work and my words. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go through all 100+ of my creations in the last 6 weeks; we will see who that you are totally ignorant of common sense notions such as the Law of large numbers. I won't provide diffs unless someone else asks for them, but we can begin with that CFD renaming of Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China along with other move de-Sinification move requests you have participated in; the list goes on. GotR 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's been no address of the misuse of the minor edit option, the putting of changes back in months later under the summary of a revert, and the doing all of this despite two users arguing against on the talkpage. As for misrepresentation of work and words, I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made. You shouldn't expect others to go through 100+ independent articles. I see you've made yet another attack on me, again unhelpful. CMD (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I am fairly whimsical on whether to check the minor edit option, and it is up to reviewing users to examine the diffs in the first place. This is a non-issue. 2) Because it still quirks me to prefer a header with questionable NPOV over one with unquestionable NPOV and greater brevity. As to the "two user arguing against on the talkpage", perhaps I have not made myself clear that I will defer only to the judgment of Readin, Shrigley, Jiang, and other users with similar centrist views.

"I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made"—just as ridiculous as sampling five Americans and claiming they are representative the US. GotR 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a page outlining the use of minor edits, ignoring it is not a non-issue. As for only ignoring the talkpage posts outside of a few select users, that's bad practice, and completely against standard WP:dispute resolution procedures. The difference between the five americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample, I took the most recent edits, made during this discussion. If you're not willing to provide diffs, that's no-one else's problem. CMD (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"The difference between the Five Americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample"—No, there is no real difference between the Five Americans as the sample size is similarly small and, besides, you just undertook convenience sampling; I've hardly met anyone who has come up with excuses for their irrationality as stupid as yours. And looking at the last 35 of my creations, only 7 (Xieji, Henan, Huilong, Dazu District, Huilong, Liangping County, Huilong, Nanchong, Huilong, Suining, Huilong, Zigong and Huilong Township, Ziyang) do not use the common name at all. One-fifth is quite underwhelming. GotR 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another attack? Looking at the most recent contributions isn't taking a sample, it's making observations on the most recent contributions. That's all I did, and all I claimed to do. Anyway, if you feel that this equates to "almost solely", that's up to you. Thanks for the figures and links though, very helpful. CMD (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you two noticed that other then some brief comments from Azylber early on and a quick note from me, there have been no other contributions to this thread? Usually that's a sign the discussion doesn't belong at ANI since no administrative action is likely to be forthcoming so it's best to either drop it or take it somewhere else. And I say this barely having read the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 block review

- On the topic of involved, Toddst does not become involved because of the original block. WP:INVOLVED is clear that admin actions do not make someone involved. He was within policy to extend the block.

- On the topic of nutters, Drmies says that NRA members should be able to handle insults or embrace more reasonable policies. I wholly reject this idea. It is not for Misplaced Pages or it's editors to determine what 'reasonable policies' are and this flies in the face of NPOV. While editors are not required to remain neutral, suggesting that we drop WP:CIVIL because editors here have a POV about their policies is only going to lead to a POV encyclopedia. We need to be civil to all viewpoints if we're going to remain unbiased.

- HiLo48 has received ample supply of criticism on his use of "nutters" and such language. Warnings do not have to imminently proceed a block, plenty of warnings were received that he should know the reaction that would happen by now.

- Bidgee made a comment that he has seen worse. That's never an excuse not to block an editor. We won't make things better by ignoring more problems because other problems have been unaddressed.

- Hans Adler made a comment about the NRA being a "world-famous group of nutters." This sort of rhetoric is not helpful ever. A demonstration of "world" view would be helpful by showing worldwide opinions instead of that of Europe and Australia.

- Despite criticism to the otherwise, indefinite blocks are preventative blocks when a user suggests the behavior will continue. They become punishment when a user intends to change behavior and the block continues to stand to reenforce the community's "anger" at them.

- Misplaced Pages is not the place to advocate against guns and paint gun-rights as fringe. I cannot make this more clear: Misplaced Pages is not for advocacy. If you cannot handle your personal feelings and emotions then edit a topic that you can.

- On the BLP issue, I did not find it was that heavily discussed and I'm not in a position to determine content. Administrators don't have the power to do that. I suggest that everyone be more aware of BLP and also understand that being a public figure is not a get out of jail card for undue bias in an article. More care should be given. I suggest all parties on both sides try Misplaced Pages:Writing for the opponent sometime.

- Consensus does not support that Toddst has committed any wrong or was outside reasonable discretion. However, consensus does disagree with Toddst on what was the most appropriate action.

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

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Badly needed. Some more eyes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification: There seems to be some misunderstanding about the terms of this block. The specific terms are "indefinite (or until this editor demonstrates s/he understands it's not ok to refer to other editors as "nutters" or "fools" per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE).Toddst1 (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block the user has shown little desire to improve their methods of interacting with the community. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/HiLo48. --Rschen7754 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Also useful to the discussion here is the discussion that led to HiLo's ITN topic ban last year. Jusdafax 06:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block HiLo48 is frequently disruptive through his incivility, there is no doubt that a long term block can be seen as preventative of future incivility, if he'll learn. Ryan Vesey 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like a reasonable block to me from what I can see. If there's evidence of some administrative error here that mitigates the evident long-term pattern of behavior by HiLo, I'm open to seeing it, but...on the current evidence, I'd support this block remaining in place until HiLo can commit to improving his/her behavior. HiLo could quite easily make that a matter of days (or hours) rather than weeks or months - the length is up to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I haven't got time to check it out now, but it superficially looks like the editor was making some comments about U.S. gun laws that might be NOTFORUM violations. The block (escalated to indefinite) appears to be due to a misunderstanding (by the blocking admin?) of what "Yes, I think you're nutters" (diff) means. I read that comment as inappropriate (NOTFORUM and very warnable as a perceived CIVIL problem), but it is possible to read the comment as shorthand for "I think is extremely misguided". Was the editor warned that such comments can easily be taken as a personal insult to other editors who happen to fall in that category? Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There was no warning. Just a straight block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • When a person has had innumerable discussions related to their incivility, there comes a point when warnings aren't necessary. HiLo48 should have been well aware by now of the consequences of calling someone nutters (among other things he does). Ryan Vesey 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Unless you can show me any sort of blanket warning that the user can be blocked from now on at any time w/o warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Without regard to the merits of this block per se, warnings are a courtesy to users who may be unaware of behavioral norms at Misplaced Pages, not a right. The RFC shows that there is significant recognition of a problem. Now, I have no opinion one way or another about the merits of this block, I haven't looked into the specifics of this situation too closely, and I interact with HiLo enough that it's probably for the best that I don't weigh in one way or another, but the precept that a block is invalid merely because it lacked a warning doesn't hold water. If there's going to be opposition to this block, it should be on the merits of HiLo's behavior in this instance vis-a-vis his history at Misplaced Pages including the RFCU, and not on whether or not he was warned. Being highly active since 2006 is warning enough. He's aware of the existence of policies and guidelines relevant here. Again, no position on whether this block is or is not justified, just that that particular line of opposition doesn't hold water. --Jayron32 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556) continue disagreeing, perhaps you should review the relevant policy. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Right below that, it says something about "judgement". And that's what I'm questioning here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Back it up with some facts. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

? That request doesn't make sense... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • (edit conflict) The purpose of warnings is to make sure users are aware of our policies, because we don't sanction people who don't realize they're doing something wrong. In this case, it's fairly clear that HiLo knew perfectly well what civility was, what our policy was on civility, and that violating the policy would get a user sanctioned. Unless you're prepared to argue that he was somehow actually still ignorant of these things, I don't think "well he wasn't warned " is going to fly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
          • The last line his latest post says "I truly didn't realise that using language common in my part of the world about a group that includes some editors here was a personal attack". And that leads to an indef. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Then that's not true, because he used the phrase during his RFC and was heavily criticized for it. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48#Somewhat_inside_view_by_Rschen7754. --Rschen7754 04:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is the first I'm hearing of this block, actually. I've interacted with HiLo a few times before, and I think it's clear he does have some issues with communication and civility. I am a bit surprised, though, to see that it has escalated to an indef. While the block is in keeping with procedure and has a solid rationale behind it, an indefinite block seems to be overkill to me. While I understand the desire to keep things under control, I don't think it's reasonable to escalate directly to indeffing a user with an almost-clean block log. For my part, being somewhat familiar with HiLo's antics, I would recomment reducing it to two weeks or so. Evanh2008  04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While I respect Evanh, I don't understand his comment: What would be the point of a medium-term block in this case? They're supposed to be preventative, not punative. The editor has given every indication that this repetitive behavior will continue, even after the block. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the speed at which this escalated. It wasn't an incredibly serious personal attack, but a block may well have been warranted. But the jump from a single, 12 hour block in his block log to 3 weeks for the second seemed excessive. And to then go straight to indef was a bigger problem - three weeks was plenty of time to work this out before escalating further. There was no pressing need to jump straight to indef. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

People are placing too much emphasis on his block log and not enough on his history of behavior. Perhaps I've just been unlucky in my interactions with him, but I have seen him acting in an uncivil manner every time I've come across him. Literally every time. He consistently manages to maintain just a low enough level of incivility to get by without being blocked. I understand that Misplaced Pages is uncensored and all, but I'd love to see a comment ban on HiLo48 using the term "fucking" or more than one exclamation mark to end a sentence. In my experience, he can't make a point without either of those. Ryan Vesey 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a big fan of HiLo's behaviour, either. There have been more than a few face palming moments, and I'm not saying that a block isn't warranted. But in spite of the problems in the past, he has only had the one block - I prefer to see things escalate slower, as I'd rather see HiLo modify his behaviour and stay than driven away. A 24 hour block might have been a better next step, or 48 hours. Three weeks was a really big step. And that's before jumping to indef, with no pressing need. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Toddst1, can you at least see that after there are voices questioning your decision, that it isn't for you to extend the block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is not punitive versus preventative measures as far as blocks are concerned. We all understand that blocks are meant to prevent damage to the project, and no one so far has disagreed with that. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, a block of indefinite duration does not prevent damage in this case, and all I'm asking is that everyone try to put this issue in perspective. If his block expires in due course, the project will not go down in flames. If he remains indeffed without a chance to fully absorb the lesson of a block, we will lose an editor who is, at the very least, competent and productive. (And yes, I know that indefinite does not mean infinite, but I think most here realise that, in practice, the two are often the same.) If he is unblocked thirteen days from now he will return to the project, and before too long we'll know whether or not he's decided to take this lesson to heart. If he doesn't, I'll eat my words and someone will indef him -- for good this time -- and we will all move on with our lives. Evanh2008  04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block. After reading through the discussion which led to his topic ban at WP:ITN, I wholeheartedly endorse the blocking admin's rationale. Horologium (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a 21-day block, but I don't know that I am willing to endorse the indef block. Horologium (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block, as the discussion at Wayne LaPierre is highly emotionally charged. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Random commentary. I don't like civility blocks and they should only be imposed for extreme cases. Referring to NRA members as "nutters"--well, that's not such a big deal, and in real-life conversation it's mild enough to pass (if they can't handle such "insults" they should embrace more reasonable policies). I don't condone a block for that, certainly not an indef-block. But the other side is this--despite what is perceived by some as incivility, can one still collaborate with the editor? The answer, in my reading of the LaPierre talk page, is no: the all-caps and exclamation points are irritating enough, but the battleground mentality (that's nothing new with this editor), in which every rhetorical opponent is a gun nut and therefore unreasonable, one can't work with that. And I see the same thing on HiLo's talk page: HiLo thinks this is about gun rights and stuff, and it's not. So, I support a temporary block (a cool-down block? maybe--long enough for them to think about this and hopefully separate political position from rhetorical stance), of a week or so, and I support future action if this battleground behavior continues. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block Comment I have just found this discussion and am somewhat surprised by the swift way the sanctions against HiLo have been escalated. Reading through the associated discussion pages that apparently have led to this turn of events I am struck by two things. Certainly I feel that a block for civility breaches was warranted, although I think that more than perhaps 48 hours is simply punitive and excessive. The second thing I noticed was what appeared to be an air of somewhat confected outrage and a lynch mob mentality amongst those arrayed against his edits. I am far from convinced that those opposed to HiLo's edits are as squeaky clean as they demand of HiLo and I feel that trouts all round would be appropriate. I respectfully request that the admins involved reconsider the escalation and reduce this block to a more reasonable duration. - Nick Thorne 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The community has had lengthy discussions with the user on civility. Ultimately, this was a preventative block because he just doesn't seem to get it when it comes to personal attacks. Admins cannot be expected to have to tell him, "That was a personal attack", and then give him another chance to behave. He should have known that "nutters" is a personal attack. It would be absurd to allow him to call people "nutters" and claim ignorance as to that being an attack. If the community allowed that to happen, people could just come up with creative personal attacks and claim ignorance on each new name they use during a spout of name-calling. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, that happens all the time, it's just very selective who gets to get away with it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Other editors slipping through the cracks doesn't mean that a block shouldn't be made when it is noticed. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nutters", to me, appears to clearly fall below the line set by WP:NPA and land in the WP:Incivility territory.OakRunner (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef While a simple 24 hour block was justified for incivility, an indef block is certainly unwarranted and excessive in the extreme. Personal attacks and civility problems are subjective by their very nature, one can interpret the word fool in various manners and consider it uncivil to various extents, personally I would say "fool" at most borderlines uncivil and barely constitutes a personal attack. YuMaNuMa 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block Are you frickin kidding me? The diffs provided rise to the level of incivility, but don't reach NPA. And we have a 21 day, escalated to an indef block? As for the admins and editors supporting this silliness, you better make sure you are always civil and you did not defend other editors that were blocked for being uncivil. Someone should file an ArbCom case and start lining up the hypocrites. Ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that an indef block is unwarranted and excessive in the extreme, and I believe that this has been escalated by the blocking admin in an inappropriate way. It was quite clear that his action of making a 3 day block had been criticised as excessive. Even if extending the block to indef was appropriate, and I do not, he should have left it to another admin to do it. Part of the problem here is that the meaning of uncivil differs from country to country. Australians are robust people and calling someone a "nutter" is not taken amiss. Furthermore I think Hilo was making a valuable general point in saying that the majority of people in Australia on both sides of politics think the gun lobby in the US are nutters. We are an international encyclopedia and the NPOV should not just be a US neutral point of view. If Hilo was uncivil, it was not really directed at individuals. Finally Hilo is a productive editor who is fun to work with. I say unblock him. It has already gone on for about 24 hours. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reduce block to time served. Though I commented above, I had not endorsed nor opposed the block, as I hadn't really had the time to look into the situation or think about it in detail. I have now done both. I think that some action was warranted, but the indef block was excessive. I think that the indef block should be lifted, with the stipulation that lifting said block is not an endorsement of HiLo's behavior. Had the initial 3-day block stood, it probably would have been fine, but the current state is untenable, I don't see any behavior here that merits the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" treatment. --Jayron32 05:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How would "time served" (as in a prison) be preventative? Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it would give him pause, hopefully, before doing it again. We should always do the least restrictive thing possible in trying to reduce disruption at Misplaced Pages, and jumping from nothing to indef for the type of offense shown here is, in my opinion, not merited. You're free to argue that we should only ever have indefinite blocks, but you're not going to convince me that is wise, and as long as we have situations where a short term block is merited, this seems like one of those situations. --Jayron32 05:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

c'mon. You're really advocating a punative block instead of a preventative block? Read the post-block comments by this editor. There is no indication that "it would give him pause." Toddst1 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've done nothing of the sort. I've only said that insofar as any situation may merit a block of defined term, this one in my opinion does. Not every offense merits an indefinite block, in my opinion. The excessiveness of the indefinite block in this particular situation makes it punitive, in my opinion. As I said, if you're prepared to argue that every block should always be indefinite, that would be logically consistent with your position on this block; I don't agree but at least I would concede it to be consistent. If you don't believe that, and you do believe that there are some behaviors that don't merit an indefinite block, then there exists the possibility that someone may arrive at a different opinion than you over which specific situations merit an indefinite block, and which do not. So which is it? Is it ever permissible to issue a block that has an expiration date? --Jayron32 06:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "preventative", as used at WP:BLOCK means preventing the encyclopedia from being harmed. It does not mean preventing people from editing. It is not our goal to prevent disagreeable people from editing, but to prevent them from editing in a disagreeable fashion. To take a step beyond corrective measures to this level is to cross the line into punitive territory. I don't believe it was your intention to issue a punitive block, but I think that's how HiLo, and probably a good number of outside observers, would perceive this. I know and understand civility policy very well, but let's not act as if we're negotiating an arms treaty here. HiLo has been uncivil in the past, but he is not a run-of-the-mill troll. Treating an established member of the community like an incompetent jerk is not good editor retention practice. I like to think I'm not the only one who thinks through all facets of a problem like this. Evanh2008  06:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... how on earth can you read Jayron32's above comment as advocating a punitive block, Toddst1? Is that a joke of some sort? Doc talk 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As to your comment that "There is no indication that it would give him pause," Todd, I have a question: What indication do you have that it wouldn't? Being that "it'll give them time to think about it" is the rationale for upwards of 90% of the blocks I've directly witnessed, I'd say the onus is on you to establish either that everyone else has been doing it wrong all this time, or that HiLo is an exception to the rule. As is, you seem to be showing an inexplicable ignorance that the rule -- or even the belief in the rule -- exists. I first read your comment "How would time served... be preventative?" to be facetious. When I realized it wasn't, I became worried. Evanh2008  06:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block - The block was unnecessary. HiLo should have been banned from the relevant talk pages for a few days with a warning that the ban will be extended if he continues insulting people on those article talk pages. Would you admins please learn some NUANCE in dealing with others? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • indefinite ban from all gun-related topics. If the editor hates them, thinks editors who are liberal in terms of gun ownership are "nutters" and "fools" and has no WP - helpful input on them then why is he commenting on them except to push a POV and be disruptive? Irondome (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • From what I can see only a minor portion of his responses on that talk page could be considered disruptive, also you need to keep in mind that that was a very heated debate on an extremely controversial topic. Such exchange of incivility is common and editors rarely get punished for uncivil non-personal-attack remarks, such behaviour is obviously not looked upon favourably, however in my opinion, it's understandable. _{I by no means endorse incivility, this is just a generality that I have observed.} If editors who participate in such debates can't deal with petty remarks such as "fool", "nutter", then perhaps that topic isn't suitable for them. YuMaNuMa 06:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Naw; his only flaw is he's being honest. He's not alone in thinking that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • WP is not a political forum. There are many "honest" editors on here on all sides of the mainstream political spectrum. Honesty isnt a licence to be obnoxious. Irondome (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
        • "Obnoxious" — Sounds more sophisticated, but is basically on the same level as "nutter." You've just run into the pot/kettle-thing. Would like me to adorn your talkpage with a warning template or is my pointing it out here good enough? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Irondome did nothing deserving of a warning template. "Obnoxious" as used by Irondome was commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is clearly acceptable under WP:NPA. Furthermore, "nutter" is more severe as it is implying that someone is nuts, or mentally ill--something more extreme and attackish than "obnoxious". Inks.LWC (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On your first point, that is entirely the point of the previous post. In exactly the same way that using "obnoxious" would not warrant a block, nor does using "nutter" in the way HiLo did warrant one. His somewhat battlefield behaviour probably was worthy of a strictly limited block, but this has become ridiculous. This started out AFAIK with this post , I might point out that what Hilo was perhaps not very well stating was that in Australia (and I suspect in most of the rest of the world outside the USA), virtually everyone thinks that the US gun laws and their proponents are crazy. This is not an NPA issue, it is simply a statement of fact. The response has been nothing short of hysterical and frankly only serves to reinforce the idea of the craziness. Again as an outsider to the USA, some of the posts here rather look like the outrage expressed by a lynch mob from some tawdry B grade western. Finally, I question the impartiality of the blocking admin in this subject, it just seems way too coincidental that they have escalated the block with such indecent haste and the justifications given here simply do not wash, IMHO. Time to end the unpleasantness. - Nick Thorne 08:12, 5 February 2013

• Endorse block - HiLo has had numerous run-ins within the project, and was topic-banned from WP:ITN for six months. He clearly loves controversy and disparaging those he disagrees with, while seeming to learn nothing. So be it. If our community is to be governed by WP:5P then civility and collaborative editing must be enforced, and I salute this block as being entirely proper. And I submit that we are heading towards a community ban discussion at the rate we are going. Jusdafax 06:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Obnoxious" means being rude, or unpleasant in manner and bearing. Or being percieved as being rude, etc. This is obviously the case with this editor or the issue would not be here. Pretty rubbish argument that, I would contend. Irondome (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So when one perceives others to be crazy or fools, one is allowed to say...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One attacks the argument, not the person Irondome (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And when one perceives others to be rude, one is allowed to say...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block Having read the relevant discussions and the RfC, I'm of the opinion that a one month topic ban would be better than an indefinite block on this editor who has spoken their mind. We do not normally escalate blocks like this on good faith editors, and civility blocks and cool-down blocks are controversial. --John (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I say again. A topic ban, no other sanction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irondome (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block of some kind, but no comment on the indefinite issue. Even going solely from what I've seen of the editor, they have a clear problem with civility and battleground behaviour. The sad fact is, this sort of problematic behaviour is common enough that any sort of block is likely to be preventative. And all this coming from someone who agrees with their views in a number of areas. If people want to topic ban them I'm fine with that but this has no bearing on the merits of a block in the meantime Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block The initial block was excessive. The escalation to indef beggars belief. It bases itself on NPA, but as others have pointed out, this was a civility issue, and one in a heated debate on an issue that is controversial in the real world. At most, what was required was a brief cooling-off block. Indefinitely blocking HiLo48 deprives the project of a productive editor without any appreciable benefit, and other editors have gotten far less for much worse. If there is a genuine pattern of behaviour to be dealt with, perhaps some other dispute resolution process is needed. One that HiLo can actually participate in. But an indefinite block is at best throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -Rrius (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. I really don't like civility blocks, especially when they are escalated so quickly, and when the final trigger is something so innocuous - the "nutters" comment is pretty mild (and appears to have been more widely aimed than specifically at Misplaced Pages editors). There's certainly some battlefield behaviour that needs to be dealt with, but a shorter block to let him cool down would have been better. (I know in theory that we shouldn't do "cool down" blocks, but in realty we do them all the time - we just say they're to "prevent heat" or whatever). And/or a topic ban from gun-related articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block - (caveat: I raised the RfC/U against HiLo48). "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Toddst, the blocking admin, has made it clear that the block is conditional and will be lifted when HiLo48 acknowledges that his behaviour is out of step with WP community norms. Indef block does not mean site ban - it means that something has to change before the editor is allowed to participate again. A polite person would apologise if insult was taken when it was not intended. That is not what is happening here. --Surturz (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef as excessive. HiLo48 has a history of reacting emotionally to certain talk page comments. This is not a good trait in a Wikipedian; it causes discussions to veer off onto unnecessary, dramatic tangents, and distracts us in our quest for consensus. Nonetheless, he is a perceptive, clueful editor, and what he says on talk pages is frequently right on the money, even if the way he says it leaves something to be desired. He's also human, and sometimes the intersections between article topics and real life are awkward ones. Ideally, I suppose, we'd all check our convictions at the door each time we logged in, but then we'd be little more than robots. I wish HiLo could be persuaded that not every foolish or offensive remark requires a response and that sometimes it's better to avoid certain articles entirely when the discussions there are likely to push his buttons. An indefinite block doesn't seem like the best method to persuade him of those things. "Nutters", huh? This is a rather draconian response to a relatively minor transgression. Rivertorch (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Added: In rereading the "nutters" comment, I think it can reasonably be construed as not directed toward other Wikipedians. If it wasn't, then it was merely a technical violation of WP:TPG (and maybe WP:FORUM) and not a WP:CIVIL infraction at all. Rivertorch (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block Toddst1 has acted poorly as a Sysop with excessive blocking for 21 days without any warning(s) but upping the block to indef without any community support, he has used his own opinion on the matter and is involved by blocking for the original 21 days and stating "If there's a next time, look for indef or a long-term block.". HiLo48's comments were uncivil and heated but most of the comments on the Talk:Wayne LaPierre are but he never made a personal attack against any English Wikipedians, it was the other people in the heated debate whom made his comments become a personal attack and removing the context on how it was said. I see nothing wrong with HiLo48's comment "I think LaPierre and all his mates are nutters", this is clearly not referring to any Wikipedians, it is directed at NRA and pro gun lobbyists and tell you the truth, most of us Australian's have the same opinion on it. If you're going to topic ban him of the heated and uncivil debate, you may as well topic ban the others whom were involved in it and clearly have their own point of views. Bidgee (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If there's anything that bothers me more than faulty reasoning, it is faulty reasoning by people who agree with me, as in doing so they destroy my own position. An admin is not involved merely by using their admin tools the first time. They simply are not; otherwise no admin could ever block a user twice. Admins are expected to follow up on tough cases, and having sanctioned a user once does not make them involved in that case any further. So the notion that Toddst1 becomes involved merely because he blocked and/or warned HiLo prior to indeffing him is absolutely wrong. If you actually read the link you provided, it says, and I quote, "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." So, even though I also partially opposed the block above, I cannot let this misappropriation of policy go uncommented on. Oppose the block if you will, as I have done, but please do so with a solid, rational, and policy-based backing, and not by inventing reasons out of whole cloth. Doing so only destroys your (and my, in this case, because I support roughly the same position) credibility. --Jayron32 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Background note. On 11 December last year I issued a block (the first) to HiLo with this explanation. HiLo obviously would have been aware of this although I've no whether the presently blocking admin was aware or not. In a way that doesn't matter, as HiLo has the responsibility to moderate his behaviour as he was the one over whom a sanction was hanging. Does this mean HiLo was on a shorter leash than other editors and to be given less leeway? Yes, that was exactly my intention in warning him. On this most recent occasion I've no doubt that his usual impulsivity at the keyboard let his fingers run away with him. I'd have blocked him myself had I see it first. Would I, personally, have indef blocked? No. But if HiLo can make a convincing case for unblocking then as we always say, indefinite is not infinite. He hasn't been banned, he just needs to permanently change his editing style. Kim Dent-Brown 08:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Have you asked him for his side of the comment, as in asking him the context it was made? No, you haven't. I agree that HiLo48 has pushed the boundaries on Misplaced Pages but I've seen worse from other editors and even Sysops but they never get the sort of treatment that HiLo48 got today. I don't think that he should have made that comment but at the end of the day it is a POV statement that has no personal connection to any Wikipedians, only those whom choose to remove the context it was said in. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The bloke lost his rag on a subject that obviously emotes him deeply. Saying nutter or fool isnt brilliant, but I have never supported any block. If the bloke is amenable, then a voluntary keep away from gun related topics is in order. If he isnt then it will have to be enforced. I have never advocated a complete block on the bloke. But you cant call millions of law abiding people "nutters" or "fools" because they happen to own firearms, and may try to defend it reasonably. Many of the horrors inflicted by mass shootings have been by unstable people who have actually stolen weapons. The last atrocity was a case in point. That view is too broad brush and may be considered by some to be "obnoxious" in terms of language used based on strong emotion. The editor obviously is a humanitarian and cares deeply for human life. The language used may be argued to be. The editor quite obviously is not. Dont ban this editor.Irondome (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. An indef for calling a world-famous group of nutters "nutters"? Totally mad. Good example of the US-centricity of this project. Hans Adler 09:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• That HiLo doesn't see the likes of this as troublesome and hasn't seen fit to avoid areas of the project in which he'll inevitably lose his rag is a problem for us, because we don't need more drama in these areas and the community keeps having to waste time having the same argument over a plainly-stated pillar of the project over and over again. I do hope that the admin who inevitably lifts this absolutely justified block is done using the mop that they will be imminently losing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yourself and others saying that he "lose his rag" isn't much better, very much an uncivil and possibly seen as a personal attack since it is commenting on the editor, not his comments. Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe one day I'll figure out who these false equivalences are supposed to be kidding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• and the fact that you've threatened fellow Sysop's whom lift the block with a chilling effect (desysoping) just shows the issues Misplaced Pages has and no wonder why editor retention is on the downward trend. Bidgee (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bidgee, your comments here are ridiculous, and Chris has not threatened anyone. GiantSnowman 10:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you look again. "I do hope that the admin who inevitably lifts this absolutely justified block is done using the mop that they will be imminently losing", it is a threat to have any Sysop whom are thinking of unblocking HiLo not to do so. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you look again. Chris states his belief that lifting this block is not the actions worth of an admin. He is not threatening to de-sysop anyone. GiantSnowman 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry but you read it again! Just incase you haven't worked it out "mop that they will be imminently losing", the "mop" is clearly to Sysop tool/rights/permission. Bidgee (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Facepalm GiantSnowman 10:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Chris cannot de-admin anyone, it's not a threat. It may be an observation that those who WP:WHEEL or even unblock against consensus are likely to end up before ArbCom and get de-adminned by them. But in no way is this a threat, chilling or otherwise. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• At a time when the entire rest of the tech community, particularly free content / free software, is realising that it needs to be more inclusive and to crack down on the aggression and hostility which puts so much of the world off participation, it never fails to amuse me that the people who yell most loudly about "editor retention" around here are the ones who hold a diametrically opposite view to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Right, we've lost not only new contributors but also long term contributors who have done a lot of constructive work but only to be tossed out onto the kerb by people gaming the system and unfit to have the tools. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Who's threatening to de-sysop others now?! GiantSnowman 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• You know who it is, stop playing games. Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Chris mentions an admin not being fit for the tools = threat, but when you do it it's not? GiantSnowman 11:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Stop trying to put words in my mouth and get Thumperward off the hook. Thumperward threatened anyone whom uses their "mop" to unblock HiLo will lose it (Sysop tools), I stated that we have some unfit (observation) Sysops, I made no threat to have their tools removed. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semantics. GiantSnowman 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's enough you two. Any further posts and I'll hat this subthread, which is not germane to the discussion. Kim Dent-Brown 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse short block / oppose indef - on the basis that blocks are supposed to prevent damage to WP, not punish editors. In this case, a block seems justified on the basis that it might force the editor to take a break, rethink their contribution direction, acknowledge a previously less-than-civil attitude with regard to some topics and come back refreshed. That's what escalation protocols are designed to to. More incivility, longer block. More again, longer again. Indeffing as punishment doesn't strike me as a good-faith approach to that principle. A short topic ban (or equivalent voluntary commitment) might help to re-focus the energy of an otherwise seemingly productive contributor. Stalwart111 10:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and/or topic ban but oppose indef - agree with sentiment expressed by many above, HiLo's repeated incivility is an ongoing & concerning issue, but an indef is not an appropriate response. GiantSnowman 10:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Indef is the only appropriate response. Time-limited blocks work only where a user may not be fully aware of the consequences of their actions, or where we expect that the disruption is strictly temporary. Neither of these are the case here. "Indef" only very rarely means "eternal" around here for established editors, but that is dependent on the community figuring out an appropriate solution which removes the problematic editing. Last time that was a topic ban from ITN: this time it may be a broader ban, as HiLo doesn't seem to be able to self-identify when he's gone beyond accepted levels of discourse. Until such point as the community agrees an acceptable remedy, the block should stand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but support the block Per Hans Adler. Further comment HiLo has an amazingly bad habit of letting his feelings about a subject overrun him particularly when the other editors are the civil POV pusher type but upping it to indef for a comment about HiLo's view of gun ownership advocates in general is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• There's no emergent consensus for an indefinite block and it should be lifted. There's a game being played here, as at so many "community" processes, of removing/retaining an editor who either supports/detracts from one's supported position on a given issue or which is informed by personal animus/regard due to a history interactions with the editor. The "community" might reflect on the use of sanction procedures ostensibly directed at behavioural issues to police content disputes and the implications of that for article quality. On contentious articles, as everyone knows, processes are gamed by all sides and the game is to eliminate POV opponents. Which is not to say that HiLo48, who is evidently a very bright and articulate editor, has nothing to learn about moderating their language so as not to walk into such traps. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the barely-veiled insinuation that those supporting a block here are all POV pushers in favour of gun deregulation in the United States, there is no evidence at all that HiLo has learned from the RfC that took place last year, which as Rschen7754 pointed out above went into precisely this area of Hilo's editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • That's actually not the argument and people will support or oppose a block/ban for a multitude of reasons (friends/enemies of the editor; ideological support for a policy position or editing philosophy the most interesting of which is the general division between civility supporters and those who espouse the notion an editor should speak their mind/be truthful/rude - both positions are problematic; belief that an editor is disruptive/too much grief or a so-called "net-asset" to the "project"; etc.). The specific reasons for particular editors to support any particular administrative action is no preclusion to gamesmanship (and is rather part of the calculation through appeal to the existing ideological framework). It's unlikely HiLo will ever "learn" and processes supposedly designed to facilitate such "learning" function rather specifically to cause a deterioration in his behaviour (notwithstanding which I have huge sympathy for Kim-Dent's impossible role in the last RFC/U). Looking at the talk page of that article, though, the quality of his arguments, disregarding POV, is good and likely to impact positively on article quality and I'm not convinced his removal has or will improve the discourse on that page.FiachraByrne (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Civility is a pillar of the encyclopedia. Editors who cannot or will not remain civil in heated discussions have no place here. It's not something that can simply be ignored if it suits a given editor's sense of balance to have attack dogs on both sides of some particular internecine political argument. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
        • In the interminable rehearsal of these issues – where civility as policy has functioned not so much as a vehicle for collegiality as the means of editor warfare – one would normally, as North does below, invoke the notion of "refreshing candour" or "honesty" in editor expression which would be contrasted with apparently insidious evil of "Civil POV pushers", "baiters" and the like. Either way, given the ubiquity of these issues, one may have to come to terms with the fact that the policy itself as framed and, more importantly, unequally implemented, is the actual problem. Large sections of Misplaced Pages are essentially activist playgrounds; the civility policy, be it pillar or not, fosters rather than addresses that fact. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
          • One man's "refreshing candour" is another's "flagrant hostility", the difference being that only those in the former camp can tolerate long-term collaboration with those at that end of the spectrum. It is simply fallacious to suggest that in order to keep a lid on "civil POV pushers" we must allow editors free rein to behave as they please when challenging them, as the vast majority of such pushback is done by editors who remain calm and civil. As for the civility policy being "unequally implemented", that is the fault of those editors who would excuse bad behaviour because it suits them, and nobody else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That's there's no agreement of what constitutes incivility or of the appropriate actions to take in an instance of behaviour identified as incivil, as a casual perusal of this page will confirm, is the problem. The issue is not whether there should be rules governing editor interaction but the current form and function of those rules, where the lack of clear definition is productive of endless "process", dissension and, indeed, a non-trivial number of deeply hostile editor engagements. Added to that, the formulation of incivility as an ideological cause has not resulted in "civility" but, rather, in prolonged and divisive conflict (which is also, and perhaps more problematically, essentially irresolvable). Calmness and civility, exemplified, say, in a model editor like User:WLU, are of course desirable qualities but they are not characteristics limited to those who promote a neutral point of view and are naturally often adopted on a strategic basis as one of the means of promoting a particular position. Civil POV pushers, given their general tenacity over extremely long periods, are really only successfully dealt with following blocks or bans; getting to that point, if possible, is often an extremely protracted process. As you'll appreciate, your summation of what constitutes the unequal implementation of civility policy is rather pointedly and preemptively directed at the case at hand and fails to appreciate the actual range of factors, behaviours and relationships that are germane to the issue. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
              • "There's no agreement on civility" is an untruth designed solely to destabilise the pillar in question. (It brings to mind Paul Krugman's comment that if GW Bush has declared that the world were flat, the New York Times would run with the headline "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ".) Editors are routinely blocked for infractions of the civility policy without any unroar. Even editors with significant editing histories by and large manage to respect our civility policies, and most of those who are blocked for civility infractions subsequently tone it down in future and don't get blocked any more. Our problem is almost entirely with a small number of charismatic and recalcitrant editors who either reject the notion of civility outright or, as with HiLo, have such a different interpretation of social norms that they cannot self-adjust to meet those of the wider community. Bringing "civil POV pushers" into it is as much of a red herring as it was five years ago, as the vast majority of those working to ensure that NPOV is enforced on difficult topics are able and willing to do so within the boundaries of what the community accepts to be civil behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure that the frequency with which editors are blocked and the response to same is an adequate measure of consensus for any policy. Evidence that the concept of civility is a point of contention and disagreement on Misplaced Pages is hardly difficult to find: (or one could just look up and down on this thread). Notwithstanding a fair amount of tribalism, grudges, and occasional envy, the fact that these disputes tend to become centred around individual editors does not point to the ineluctable workings of text-based "charisma" but, rather, to the absence of adequate governance and clear policy where, to become concrete and articulated, issues and values must be personalised around the actions, utterance and character of specified editors who come to symbolise certain positions. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (HiLo48 block review)

• Oppose block or reduce block. The latest comment was not that far out of line. It propose changing it to a 48 hours block. Pass a Method talk 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reduce block to time served I've interacted with HiLo48 for 3 1/2 years. We disagree on about 95% of everything. Their rough way of writing is their routine way of talking to friends and people that they are debating. There is no nastiness behind it as one would mistakenly infer if they were not familiar with them. I find their bluntness refreshingly direct and much much nicer than the more common wiki-legal ways that people wage warfare in Misplaced Pages (via mis-use of policies, guidelines and forums, often using gang warfare.....and HiLo does NONE of that). I guess it's inevitable that their roughness will need to be tamed in Misplaced Pages. However, I consider a three week block on a situation that was borderline on even being an issue overkill, and then changing it to "indef" for some of HiLo48's comments on their own talk page to be beyond-the-pale. I am guessing that both actions had some emotional over-reaction component in the decision making process. Random huge punishments under the authority of Misplaced Pages are more harmful to Misplaced Pages than HiLo's rough words. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • North8000, I think I disagree with you on about 96% of issues, but not here. Thanks for reaching out across the aisle, though I know that there's probably a gun up your sleeve, Taxi Driver-style. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose idef block; reduce to time served Per North8000. Also, not a fan of civilty blocks; Plus I'm sure HiLo has had time to cool. I would urge HiLo, if unblocked, that they are more cautious when communicating with others. All in all, an indefinate block is completely punitive. — MST☆R 11:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. We have WP:CIVIL for a reason- because when people are name-calling, it impairs people's ability to get work done together. It did seem like an abruptly long block, and I would support shortening or lifting it if HiLo understood that and had a plan for doing better in future, but he has explicitly stated that he will continue calling people who disagree with him on this issue 'nutters,' and he thinks he is right to do so, because people who disagree with him really are nutters. That isn't okay, and it is going to make the difficult work on creating accurate articles on this subject even more difficult every time he does it. If it's necessary to know him personally to understand that even if he's being insulting, he's a nice guy really, that doesn't work at Misplaced Pages, where not every editor will know him personally. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Indefinite means "until the community is convinced it won't recur". Based on the history - and the current comments on their talkpage - we'll need some real convincing. Oh, and if by some chance they do convince someone on the planet, then it needs to be with the restriction that any future violation will be a ban, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Over the top Reduce to something reasonable. The solution to the Misplaced Pages civility issue is coming up with an actually policy (rather than some hand waving vague concept), not blocking the "bad" editor du jour. NE Ent 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, he (or she, don't know) has had plenty of chances and warning. GregJackP Boomer! 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48's incivility is considered and deliberate, I think a lot of editors here don't realise that. From November 2012:

I'm comfortable within myself. Pretending to be nice to nutters never makes me feel better, and it encourages them. I am part of a culture of honesty. I'm not leaving it.

From October 2012:

(...)attempts at polite dialogue have no impact at all. Swearing at him at least gets his attention.

--Surturz (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral Neither the block nor condition to unblock seem beyond the bounds of reason given the history. It seems the condition can be met, but we shall see, so neutral. A few other observations are: all rules and laws are unevenly enforced off the Pedia, so it's unreasonable to expect such a thing on the Pedia, but it's also no reason to overthrow Pillars (which are also expressions of WP:Terms of use). Rules and laws are aspirational, as well as functional. Uneven enforcement is the price of being human but it also serves to make rule breaking less approved. The Pillars, including Civility and NPOV are reasonable rules of conduct and content, but they also address different things; it makes little sense to attempt to enforce one by breaking the other. If the concern is that a single admin is entrusted with making such judgments, than it is probably best to reform blocking process in toto, rather than to keep having these same ad hoc conversations/ivotes here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block, in case that wasn't clear from the above. Evanh2008  13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Without comment on the merits of the block, I will say that it's certainly possible to edit articles about fringe groups without deriding them on-wiki. I've contributed to articles about the KKK and lynch mobs (both of which I have a very low opinion of, to say the least), and I never felt the need to type out a list of insults on their talk pages. The talk pages are there for discussion of improvements to the article, not for you or I to express our opinions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock: I see nothing in recent diffs by HiLo48 that would necessitate the indefinite block of a good-faith user. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Without saying that no block was proper, it is clear that whatever value it had is now being reduced. And I can point out a host of people using far worse language than "nutters" for sure - by people who do not get blocked at all. If we wish to establish civility rules, we ought to be reasonably consistent. And yes, we should establish some consistent standards so the most uncivl ones do not get of scot-free. Collect (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse indef, with the proviso that indef="as long as HiLo thinks questioning other editors' sanity is a good debate technique here". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, albeit reluctantly, with Sarek's proviso (which is obviously what was intended). I like HiLo and he often makes a lot of sense, but Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and its editors need to be able to resolve the inevitable good-faith disagreements through discourse without resorting to insults—even, or perhaps especially, where they hold deep differences of opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse As was clearly stated, indefinite =/= permanent. Hilo could be unblocked this very second if he agreed to abide by community norms. That said, my experience with this editor is that a truly indefinite block is inevitable. It is merely a question of if he's willing to hang himself now or later. Though I would quite like to be proven wrong. The ball, however, is in his court. Resolute 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block, undecided on indef. I support the block, but indefinite may be a bit too much. I understand indefinite != infinite, but at the same time this block (original, not the extension to indef) was only his second block. I would shorten the indef to a good long 60 days or so, but how it's set up with indef also works. Ks0stm 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by one of the Nutters - Hi Folks, I hope its not inappropriate for me to comment, but I'm one of the individuals that HiLo referred to as a "nutter" on the Wayne LaPierre Talk page. I was not offended personally or otherwise by his comments and I consider this editor, his previous issues notwithstanding, as someone who ads a note of civility and clear thinking to discussions on some heated and impassioned topics. In fact, I'd like to point this conversation on his Talk page about US gun sanctions. I think it demonstrates that people from around the globe with vastly different cultural influences can come together, share their opinions, and politely chat. That said, I feel that WP would suffer with the loss of this editor. Just my 2 cents... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reduce block to one month or even more, but indef is too much. Let's give him one more chance. Cavarrone (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of extremism

I would like to report acts of incivility which are not bordering on an incident. After reviewing the various methods of dispute resolution and arbitration, I have come to the conclusion that this specific conflict does not fall into any other category. I don't think I can take this to RfC because it isn't solely about user conduct, but rather both conduct and content. I already tried to get a third opinion with the helpful user GorgeCustersSabre and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. I don't think it belongs at the because that page insinuates that it is only for conflicts which the community has previously been unable to solve, and this situation hasn't escalated to that level yet. The dispute resolution noticeboard appears to be for disputes which are purely content related. The Mediation Committee also appears to be for disputes which are purely content related, and as a last resort, but this isn't a last resort as I feel this problem can be solved without oversight.

For the past six years or so, the page on Barelvi, which is a religious movement in South Asia, has been a battleground both between detractors who wish to defame this group (mostly through petty vandalism) and supporters who wish to remove any sources which indicate controversy or criticism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor who is a follower of a religious movement editing that movement's page, so long as they edit objectively. This has not been the case with all editors, something which I and others have tried to rectify - for six years. I have recently been subjected to a number of personal attacks due to my edits on this article, and the users who have attacked me personally:

1. Have continued attacking me on other pages, and

2. All have a history of being blocked for either vandalism or uncivil behavior

The content dispute itself isn't that major and wouldn't warrant being brought here on its own, but the antagonistic nature of some comments directed at me has caused me to feel uncomfortable continuing discussion with these editors directly. I would like to notify the administrators of this and request some form of outside intervention, either through warning the editors involved (even myself, if I am found to have conducted myself inappropriately) or another effective means of solving this issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu's explanation

That Barelvi Article was having a consensus version for more than a year see ] and there were minor edits.Neutral editors were keeping and maintaining the Article Objective see the history and version. So I request neutral editors to maintain consensus version.

1.This is high time that Misplaced Pages should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi.

2.The case of mezzo mezzo is that he stopped Non Wahabi or general Muslim wikipedians to add the heading, Wahabi Terrorism relations in Wahabi Page where as he is recently involved in an attempt to insert the Just opposite matter in Barelvi Page.It may be noted that Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden including Lashkar and Taliban all have same ideology i.e Wahabism or so called Salafism.A pervert ideology which is responsible to kill lacs of innocents in the world.

So my indirect attribution on a Wahabi as Jehadi are not baseless.

3.The Barelvi Ahle Sunnah ideology is only power which is countering openly and organizing protest against the Terrorism in South Asia and in other parts of the world which is disliked to these People.In the Whole world Sufism or Barelvi are the main victims of these terrorist.Here it is very important to bar Wahabi or Wahabi sympathizer to edit the pages against which their ideals are waging a so called Jehad.

4.The Wahabi authors have always tried their level best to insert their personal opinions and to reduce the importance of all Non Wahabi Pages on wikipedia,in this connection mezzomezo has done his level best in the past to suggest many pages from Barelvi page for Deletion.

5.He has history of engaging in

(a)Bitter debates and in (b)Edit wars with Non Wahabi editors

6.Ultimate agenda of these editors is to save pages of Terrorist ideology and defame his opponents. Msoamu (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo's explanation

Barelvi article

• On January 27th at Talk:Barelvi, I expressed my view that User:Baboon43's affiliation with the Barelvi movement was compromising his objectivity; I based this view on dealing with the article for six years and seeing this before, and my familiarity with English-language discussion boards for this movement on the Internet. My comments seem to have upset him, as he reacted here by accusing me of being a member of a rival religious movement in the region and described my assumptions as ridiculous. I assured Baboon43 that I am not a member of any religious or political movement - though even if I was, that doesn't restrict me from editing the article in and of itself, nor does Baboon43's membership in the Barelvi movement restrict him from editing in and of itself. I also reiterated my view regarding the content dispute; mainly, that Baboon43 is painting all rival religious movements in the region (Deobandi, Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi) as being the same, and calling them Wahhabis, a term for Muslim extremists. This conflicts with established consensuses on all these articles; they are separate movements, even if they (and the Barelvis) agree on some points due to them all being Muslim movements. Baboon43 expressed his feelings that my accusations of POV signaled my own POV, that I was trying to assert ownership of the article and that I was accusing him of "hating" other religious groups. I was upset as I felt he was changing the focus of the discussion, and was claiming (what I still uphold are conspiracy theories) that all Muslims who are not Barelvi are united in trying to harm the Barelvi movement, causing me to answer that he can't simply reject established scholarly consensus across several articles in favor of conspiracy theories about entire countries trying to sabatoge his movement. He once again accused me of belonging to some rival group, of hating Barelvis and of edit warring, which was not my intent. GorgeCustersSabre made a sincere attempt to mediate the situation after I requested him informally to arbitrate, as he had earlier expressed legitimate concern about edits, including my own.
• On January 28th, I attempted to pull the discussion on Talk:Barelvi back to the content instead of the conduct and requested a review of my own disputed edits. Later, there was a rush of IP addressed vandalizing the article in ways which were insulting to the Barelvi movement, followed by a series of deletions and rewrites by another IP address from the exact opposite perspective. On February 2nd, I requested that the page be protected due to the spat of edits, but I failed to go to a proper board for such a request; a mistake on my part, in retrospect.
• On February 4th, User:Msoamu - with whom I had fallen into conflict years ago - entered the discussion, calling me a Wahhabi (technically a slur, as it means a Muslim extremist rather than a self-identifying group) and accusing me of:

Engaging in a history of edit wars on the page,

Trying "hundreds of times to vandalize this page,"

Trying "to show this Moderate movement in Bad light from various angles,"

That I "must has received many warnings in the past" (I haven't received any),

I edited the article according to some hidden agenda,

I consider Barelvis to be heretics, and

Called me a Jehadist, an accusation which could have serious implications for my personal and professional life. This accusation in particular could hurt my own self and my family, as my IP address could be associated with violent fundamentalism, and I have no connections to that whatsoever.

• Msoamu reverted edits GorgeCustersSabre, about which GorgeCustersSabre inquired on the talk page. Msoamu's answer was to again simply accuse me of vandalism, edit warring and breaking some imaginary consensus. He never actually gave any reasons why my edits or the sources I added were inappripriate.
• Msoamu accused me of having a history of vandalism, edit warring and insinuated that I should not be allowed to edit the Barelvi page because I am not a follower of the movement.
• Finally, I just expressed my desire for arbitration, for which Baboon43 seemed to mock me.
• It is worth noting that User:Saqibsandhu, whom I don't know and have never had contact with, did defend my disputed edits as sound and well referenced and called for an end to the personal attacks.

Wahhabi article

• Concerned about Baboon43's intentions and his history of being blocked for disruption, I went to the Wahhabi article as he had been challenging the scholarly consensus on that group over on Talk:Barelvi. As I expected, I found him there expressing more opinions which I disagreed with from an editorial standpoint. On February 2nd, Baboon43 posted a comment which seemed to insinuate that all prominent persons from Saudi Arabia must be members of the Wahhabi movement. On February 4th, I again expressed my belief that Baboon43 was promoting conspiracy theories, and that I found (and still do find) his comments to border on racism; how can we say that all famous people from a country of 25+ million are members of an extremist religious movement? It's like saying that all famous Cubans are communists, it's not an appropriate statement to make. Baboon43's reaction was to accuse me of being a Wahhabi and of not having knowledge on the subject. Again, even if I were a Wahhabi - and I told him before this that I am NOT a part of any movement, but even if I were - I would still be allowed to edit articles. Likewise, even if I have no knowledge of the issue, I can contribute to articles. The constant accusations of being a religious extremist, however, are very problematic. I informed Baboon43 that I wanted arbitration, and he responded by more or less mocking me for it.

Further discussions

The accusations of being a Jihadist can potentially threaten the safety of my family and the stability of of personal and professional life. It sullies my image as a Misplaced Pages contributor and will really endanger my family if my IP address or details of my identity are ever known. Above all thing, I would like this issue addressed; not only do I feel the slander should be removed, but I would also like to know if that edit can even be removed from the article's history.

In addition to User:GorgeCustersSabre, I would also like to call User:MatthewVanitas as a witness to this, as he helped working out some of the POV issues on the Barelvi article six years ago, and thus knows how far back these issues go. In the name of fairness, User:Shabiha has also monitored this page for years; as a Barelvi editor who has also criticized my edits in the past, perhaps he can provide another point of view on this dispute. Lastly, this User:Saqibsandhu person seems concerned and perhaps can provide some insight. I will inform Baboon43 and Msoamu about this incident report. I look forward to a resolution to all this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Having looked at just the evidence of racial speculation, that is totally unacceptable and there should be sanctions for that alone - I cannot see where they directly called you a Jihadist, but then I don't know enough about the Islamic religion/culture to determine which of these other speculations is essentially calling you a Jihadist. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Accusing somebody of being an "online Salafi Jihadist" is very uncivilised.I would like to request User:Msoamu to stop personal attacks and calling others extremists and please bring solid and neutral references like User:MezzoMezzo did if you want to contribute on page.Revert war and personal attack is not a good policy if you have any objection on edits by Mezzo Mezzo bring it on talk page and discuss it with fellow editors. Recently when User:GorgeCustersSabre and User:MatthewVanitas challenged my edit about Shrine worshipping we solved the matter on talk page( even though still I can provide lots of 3rd party references to prove my self right but they kept my edit also and added a neutral statement that "opponents call it shrine worshipng". we have to make this article more balanced not a battle ground to push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• User:Lukeno94: Msoamu called me a Jihadist here when he said: "I appeal and invite neutral authors to come forward and Save this Page from Online Salafi Jehadist like mezzo mezzo." It's the last paragraph of his edit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, MezzoMezzo is right that he has been subjected to severe and unfair personal attack. I have not always agreed with MezzoMezzo's edits, including a few reversions of my own edits, but he tries hard to be objective and he always explains why he is making the edits. That's the right way of going about things on Misplaced Pages. I commend him. Differences can be sorted collegially on talk pages. Accusations of extremism against him are unwarranted and ruin the good will we are all trying to create.Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The SaquibSandhu is not neutral and is supporter of Wahabism. His edits reflects his dis likeness to Barelvi movement.As mezzo mezzo has alleged that Article was having any POV,let it should be examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre or by any other neutral editor.This false and baseless allegation does not give right to him to insert his own POV.Msoamu (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Protip: Don't insult the person who AN/Ied you at AN/I, or make allegations about their beliefs. Perfect way to lose your case immediately. Also, can you provide evidence in your defence about him pushing his POV? Also, please tell me what "SaquibSandhu" means? Is this an insult or derogatory name, or what exactly, as I see no user listed here with that name? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like it might be a name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

mezzo how can you complain about personal attacks when you are behind it..not only do you personally attack others but you turn the discussion personal when you disagree with editors..you have gone out of your way to confront me in multiple pages..you even said you would add relevant articles on your watch list…wahabi is not a term for muslim extremists if you go to the Wahhabi article its simply a movement..i never claimed all muslims who are not barelvi are united in harming barelvi movement…i never said all famous ppl are wahabi stop making things up..mezzo called me a racist for stating the fact that saudi arabias royal family are wahabis as clearly written in historical references see Emirate of Diriyah..mezzo disagreed with my comments on Talk:Barelvi so he quickly entered into discussion by lookng at my contributions at Talk:Wahhabi his excuse was that i have a history of 2 blocks last year therefore he has the right to hound me..he then began personal insults calling me racist ..admins need to sanction mezzo for his hounding and personal attacks on myself Baboon43 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43: Wahhabi is a Muslim extremist movement; you calling me that is an insult and is clearly meant as one. I will not discuss that topic further than that; attempts to deny it are silly enough to warrant being ignored. As for Al-Waleed bin Talal, then this is a content issue but it's still racist. You're saying all members of the House of Saud are also members of an extremist religious movement? Again, can I now say that anyone from the family of Hugo Chavez believes in authoritarianism? This is also different from your previous statement where you seem to implicate any Saudi involvement in projects equals Wahhabi involvement. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came off.

Anyway, I'm still more concerned about your conduct than the content. The content issue could be sorted out if it weren't for your conduct which makes me uncomfortable in dealing with you outside of a controlled environment like this. As for my own conduct then let's allow outside mediators to look at it and comment here. I called your comment bordering on racism. I didn't say it's full on 100% racism, and I didn't say anything about your personally. The link in the previous sentence to my edit is proof of that. And as for following you then of course I watched those pages. You have a history of vandalism proven by your block log and your standoffish nature was a cause for concern. If you or anyone else can show me explicitly in Misplaced Pages guidelines that my behavior was incorrect then of course I will stop, but to my knowledge I haven't broken any rules; you've broken a number already. That's ok as all editors make mistakes but the big problem is that you seem completely unwilling to engage with me personally in a civil manner, hence my seeking of outside intervention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu: Which allegations are false? You called me a jihadist here. I work for a reputable institution and if such allegations were ever to be tied to my identity, it could have ramifications at work; nobody wants to be associated with that, nor do governments in the civilized world tolerate such people. Thus, your comment runs the risk of putting both me and my family in danger. And without reason! I disagreed with your editing as I found it disruptive; where do you get off accusing me of religious fundamentalism? The content about which we were disputing wasn't even related to politics! Now you sit here insulting another editor who didn't even get involved other than to comment in opposition to your behavior, calling him a Wahhabi supporter too. How you do even know that? The person whose name you mentioned hasn't given his own opinions in any discussion or even engaed in comprehensive edits, he just disagreed with you. The whole world is full of Wahhabis now unless they all bend to your viewpoint?

And how can you claim that you want neutral editors like GorgeCustersSabre to monitor the article when every single edit he's made to the article has been reverted by yourself without discussion or explanation? It almost seems like you're just trolling now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

wahabi saudi clerics have denounced terrorism so no your wrong..wahabism is a movement out of saudi arabia and is not synonym to extremism..why don't you look at your own personal attacks calling me barelvi? its time you take your own advice by halting uncivil behaviour..then maybe after that you can direct other editors about civility. Baboon43 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Msaamu: How do you know that I am Wahabbi ?? this is again a personal attack from you. You were removing a referenced material and I was asking you to discuss it on talk page is that make me Wahabi ?? There are lots of people every where in world who disagree with barelvi movement means they all are Wahabi? And about my neutrality you can see on talk page the stuff I provided there was from a third party not from Pro Barelvi or wahabi site and even after that when GorgeCustersSabre tried to make the wording neutral did I stopped ?? see the talk page. Please do some "Real contribution" instead of personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem ready to discuss content in a civil manner, Baboon43. Will we be able to do this without name calling?

Calling someone a Barelvi, by the way, is not a personal attack. There is a tremendous difference between ascribing someone to that movement and calling them a Wahhabi. I think everyone else here will agree. Are we ready to move on? (For admins viewing this, I still don't consider the issue with Msoamu finished at all - I would still like my personal concerns addressed, as well as his further personal attacks on others right here on this noticeboard, if possible.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Unless any of you have publicly stated what your religious views are, I don't think it's appropriate to claim anyone is part of ANY religious movement, regardless of what type. Obviously, naming someone an extremist (via associating them with an extremist group) is worse, but avoiding that kind of conversation entirely would be the most sensible policy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I attributed a terminology Online Jehadist to Wahabi Supporters who don't want others to know the real face of their movements.The Wahabi Terrorism relationship is regularly removed by MR.MEZZO MEZZO on the pretext of one and another.See ]

Must See that how Saqibsandhu has just removed ] a Terror word from the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan a Banned terrorist organization of Pakistan.What more evidence one needs ? If not original terrorist, their supporters are here to defend them any how.This is what i tried to show to all neutral editors.

Sockpuppetry at Japanese articles

Following the indefinite blocking of JoshuSasori for threats and disruption, a number of articles they frequented on Japanese subjects have been targeted by anonymous edits. This has been especially disruptive at Tales of Moonlight and Rain where various anon accounts have proceeded to edit war. A fuller list of socks and articles affected is at the SPI. For the time being, I request semi-protection for Tales of Moonlight and Rain and duck-blocks for the IPs, as well as further investigation as to the extent of the problem.--Cúchullain /c 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most recent sock is 124.85.41.57 (talk · contribs · count).--Cúchullain /c 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the IPs are really serious problems and they appear to be from Tokyo, Japan. I think JoshuSasori is using IPs to deliberately avoid scrutiny. Also, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has semi-protected Tales of Moonlight and Rain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Anon has presented some interesting evidence that he/she is not JoshuSasori here. Apparently the number of articles the user edited before JS was blocked comes to four, although one of them (the only one he/she mentioned until now, even when prompted) was an instance in which JS weirdly voted against his usual tendency to use English. Additionally, one of the other three has the anon coming to the article 12 hours before JS was blocked (and sometime after he was told he was being blocked). (Full disclosure, though, I also came to that article not long before JS's block, as did a few others, as the subject had passed on a few days earlier.) Additionally, I don't think JS lives in Japan: I had several heated debates with him during a timeframe we were both actively editing, at a time when I should have been asleep. I did this because he trolled me into it, but I can't imagine he chose to hold shouting matches with me at 3 a.m. Lastly, the Anon has requested a CheckUser to prove his/her innocence. Therefore, I am beginning to waver on this Anon being a sock of the blocked JoshuSasori; rather, I think he/she is just a particularly disruptive Anon user. We'll see if he/she follows me to other articles now that Tales of Moonlight and Rain has been protected... elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the behavioral evidence that this is Joshu trying to evade his block. He's doing the same things in the same way, and Joshu has hopped around to several IPs. That doesn't mean he's the only one ever to have used that particular IP.--Cúchullain /c 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Himesh84

Himesh84 and myself have been involved in a number of disputes over the last 8 months the most recent of which was over my placement of a number tags on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The dispute has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Three DRN threads were also opened (October 2012, January 2013, January 2013) but all were closed early. About three weeks ago an admin, Qwyrxian, joined in the discussion and offered his opinion and advice on how to resolve the dispute. In Qwyrxian's opinion the factual accuracy and lack of references were justified and self-evident. Qwyrxian asked me to justify the neutrality tag. The other tags were unnecessary. Qwyrxian then reverted WelupillaisOb's (a sockpuppet of Himesh84) removal of the tag.

Himesh84 ignored this and reverted Qwyrxian's edit, removing all the tags. A few days ago I a started a separate section on the talk page to justify the neutrality tag and re-inserted the neutrality and the factual accuracy tag. Himesh84 once again removed the tags stating was needed to add tags (this is a deliberate misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works).

In his relatively short time on Misplaced Pages Himesh84 has been involved in a number of disputes. The main reason for this is his unwillingness to abide by the core policies on content (neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research). He has also shown an inability accept he is wrong, choosing instead to prolong the dispute in the hope that other editors will give up or lose interest - see protracted discussions here, here and here. In November 2012 he refused to accept the outcome of a DRN mediation, created two POV forks which were speedily deleted (here and here) and ended up being blocked. He has also shown that he is prepared to use underhand tactics such as using sockpuppets and lying to admins in order to get his own way.

I am aware that I should probably take this to DRN but given how the three DRNs on the latest dispute ended and how Himesh84 reacts to DRN's I ask for admin intervention.--obi2canibe 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is something non-ideal with Himesh84's edits, but I don't know that we're at a point requiring administrative intervention (i.e., a block). Himesh84 seems to always want to jump to dispute resolution--as in, one person reverts him, and he thinks it's time to go to DRN. But I kind of understand that attitude, because he was previously scolded for edit warring without using dispute resolution. Having said all that, I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry and other problems that Obi2canibe raises. It would be great if someone could look into the details; I'm off for the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing on case you bring the issue here. At least read what is in the talk page before disturbing to Administrators.

If DRN was closed too early it is not my fault. You either needed to participated on time ( on 2 occasions) like other people did or report 2 users who closed the 2 DRNs too early clarifying your busy lifestyles. But not me. Anyway you could open new DRN when you visited Misplaced Pages rather finding reasons to skip DRNs and justifying the skip.

You didn't justified neutrality tag. You explain your stand on neutrality tag and inserted two tags (both neutrality and factual errors (why?)). factual errors (if any) are not self evident. They needed to be shown. But two major concerns(start point of the conflict,no mentioned about Tamil presence on the island prior to the 13th century) you stated without any references are referred in the article.

• see the reference number 1 for start point of the conflict.
• Tamil present before 13th century - Tamils came during kingdom of Rajarata era had mixed with the Sinhalese community. Era of Kingdom of rajarata is 537BC to 1215

You have not been able to justify rest of the incidents you mentioned has any effect to Tamils to resorting to militancy. You have mentioned Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonization; Standardization . But I am 100% sure you didn't know anything about these things. CC act only affected to Indian Tamils ( 4th largest ethnic group in SL) not to Sri Lankan Tamils. If it is not affected on SLT how it is a reason for them to resorting to militancy? You needed to explain this since I feel it crazy and silly reason. Also I have proved how Tamils get advantages from standardization using 2011 official cutoff marks. Colonisation - This is some selfish mentality from SL Tamils. They can live anywhere in Sri Lanka ( 30% of urban Colombo population are SLTamils came from Jaffna) but object same right for other ethnic groups and saying a reason to wear arms. Anyway I added those information to the article since many Tamils (including you) saying it is an reason - find it in Traditional homelands claim by Tamils section.

WelupillaisOb is not a sockpuppet. It is an alternative account ( I am not the only one who using different account on public networks).

Earlier I was blocked for sock-puppet case. Not for forking or anything else. It is over but still I refuse the sock puppet charges. WP admin did early conclusions and went on with it after the heated discussions. Also about lying it was angry respond to my block reason specified by admin. I just gave an example to show that the admin was wrong. That's all. Everyone except Obi2canibe understood that.

Still I think I am correct on past disputes. You trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote propaganda. You not allow to include criticism against what favor on you (UNSG) and include any criticism on what not favor to you (LLRC). I have state my opinion in | here. Still no one clarified what are the specific policies for two structures for competitive reports. Himesh84 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

About edit waring, here are best examples about my friend's behavior.

He removed citation required tags without providing facts | 1. |2. References for native, relationship between Tamils lived in Rajarata with present ethnic group called as 'Sri Lankan Tamils' was raised in |talk page.

This is the only relative answer by him but it doesn't answer the raised concerns.

> This is a good article. It has 168 in line citations. And yet you place these tags?

In all other answers he has questioned the users behavior rather answering to the questions but continuing with reverting the article.

> This and your other behviour over the last week has shown your true character - childish and unimaginative. Please grow up

> You still haven't learned Himesh84. Misplaced Pages has no place for your games. Please edit using your registered account rather than dynamic IP addresses.

Still do administrators things above answers by obi2canibet could make consensus for his changes and above answers can save him not involved in edit waring without making constructive comments for repetitive reverts he made ?

Here is confession of another edit waring. He had been edit waring for very long about tags ( most of the his reasons for tags are intangible ( as reasons he using self evident and doesn't needed to pin pointed). But when he confessed he was not knowing factual errors, but edit repeatedly edit waring. He said he can't provide reasons now. Will provide later. Himesh84 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasiahmad3

Wasiahmad3 (talk · contribs), who has been notified, has only made edits to Misplaced Pages space to promote an organization. Block/warn? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've warned them for promotion, with no prejudice against further action. —Rutebega (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility and user DCB4W

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

DCB4W Removes "systemic bias" tag without consensus. Behaves "bossy" threatens to others in ultimatum form ("I'll check back in 48 hours before I remove the tag again"). Please take measures. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Provide citations that prove systematic bias or quit restoring the tag. If you think it's an English problem, find Russian sources that paint a different picture and prove it. Your personal expertise is not going to prove anything here.--v/r - TP 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a citation in the situation of systemic bias shows deep misunderstanding of the systemic bias issue. Please familiarize yourself with the essence of it and with the ways to counter it. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore if you have looked carefully, you would have spotted the "Second and most important. The Spanish and Russian articles about the subject ( the actual involving parties ) have no such negative flavour about soviet involvement. Only the English has it. What other reference do you really need as the poof? Both Spanish and Russian pages have plenty of references. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking the personality of TP, I believe it would be better if some other admin who is not an american jingoist would look into the issue 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-striking" a personal attack doesn't make it not a personal attack. You've had final warnings for personal attacks (and played the "jingoism" card ) before - one more comment like that and you will be blocked. "Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. Go to the user page and see it yourself. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The word "Jingo" nor any variation of it are not on the linked userpage. gwickwire_edits 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Now look at the photo. They do look like a right candidate to counter systemic bias, don't they? Though maybe you are right, maybe the word has more negative meaning in it than i thought. I'd appreciate if you could enrich my vocabulary with the correct one. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some would call that statement a bigoted one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some would get a nice reddish final warning from The Bushranger, won't they? Or does The Bushranger manipulate the rules however it pleases them in a certain situation? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Well, if some people are making personal attacks, boomeranging on AN/I, and misinterpreting rules, then those people truly deserve warnings before they get themselves blocked. Hint hint, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh i forgot! those are only the other people who misinterpret rules! I see... May you please leave me without your comments? I've already got your threats point. You don't have to repeat it. Really. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you were already on your final warning for personal attacks, I was pointing out that you were the bigoted one with that statement, and instead of a "nice reddish final warning" you could easily have, instead of my comment being made there, been immediately blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side".

Yeah, right. The fact that the Spanish and Russian pages about the subject do not have the strong negative flavour really doesn't indicate the systemic bias issue. It's just my POV. Sure. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, possibly, the Spanish and Russian pages are the ones that are not neutral? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. Taking that the article uses subjective assessments, rather than facts, it is very likely that it is NPOV and has no bias at all!

After all censorship and brainwashing exists only in the other countries, not in my beloved one, right? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And if you have spotted the stricken "who is not an american jingoist" what has forced you to step in and try to resolve the issue? The fact that it was stricken? But you have said yourself that it doesn't count. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that it did count. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice warning you have put on my page, The Bushranger, thank you! I wonder will DCB4W get the same treatment for clearly bulling others? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there was any bullying to warn about, I would. This isn't bullying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Let me cite Misplaced Pages:Civility for you: "Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. Talking in ultimatum form and removing a tag, which clearly says Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved. is not a bulling at all! It's pinnacle of civility and rule abidance! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) This IP really needs to calm down and stop making personal attacks, or they will certainly find a block n' boomerang heading their way. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your threats are really important. thank you! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I do so love when people complain about bullying and behaving "bossy," using bossy, bullying tones to do so. I'm heartily in favor of this boomeranging IP being sat down for a nice block. Ravenswing 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak in ultimatum tone to others. I do not threat to others. I do not remove tag which clearly says "Do not remove". 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend that as an ultimatum at all. I just didn't want to get into a reversion war and I figured that two days would give other editors plenty of time to come up with sources in support of the tag. (I don't speak Spanish or Russian, so I couldn't go looking at the corresponding articles myself.) I was actually giving some thought to asking for a third opinion, which still might not be a bad idea. (Arguably, I was the third opinion, since the dispute started between the IP address and Grandiose. As best I can tell, Grandiose and Kevin Murray actually attempted to address some of the IP's concerns more than a month ago.) DCB4W (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the IP claims that DCB4W violated WP: CIV, when he nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, he was acting correctly in favor of WP: BRD. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah being bold is clearly applicable to something which says "Do not remove" on it! Screw it! Just be bold and remove. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's discussion. The only people claiming bias are you, and a SPA that has made no other edits ever. The GA rereviewer only "failed" it on neutrality based on the tag - everyone else there believes there is no issue; the only one claiming this issue is you. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "unanimous opinion", nor does it mean "what I want". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to block IP

Proposal - just block the IP and be done with it. There is a limit to patience and understanding, and s/he clearly doesn't want to discuss this. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"clearly" I am the one who does not want to discuss. Just goes bold and removes something which says "do not remove" on it without seeking a consensus at the talk page. It is absolutely clear indeed! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Just went to your page and noticed the "This user assumes good faith." userbox. Are you serious? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support The IP clearly and delibratley violated WP: NPA and is obviously WP: NOTHERE. Time for him/her to sit out for a while and learn the basic principles of our site. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support he/she shares the views we all don't like. Let's find some false accusation to have a formal excuse to get rid of the bastard. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - per the IP's behavior on the discussion above, clearly a POV-pushing SPA with no tolerance for the views of others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support block since the IP doesn't seem to understand how the neutral point of view is achieved on Misplaced Pages. He has yet to present a single source for alternate viewpoints, and just rails against everyone (both sources and editors) who disagree with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Anybody can see the discussion isn't going anywhere; classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Hopefully he'll read up on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT while he's blocked. —Rutebega (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to all of the above, this indicates clearly that this editor is here on a mission and is not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• IP blocked. The unacceptable behavior is self-evident and there's no reason to waste too much of our time dealing with this. Swarm 04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nickst

User:Nickst has been edit warring over a CSD template on "his" page, for which an ANEW thread has already been started. Having been unsuccessful at an AfD of an article he created after it was deleted in a deletion discussion, he seems to have started a WP:POINTY rival AfD, apparently connecting my comments at the AfD with the fact I edited the Czech Footballer of the Year article yesterday in order to select this particular article. He has used this "rival AfD" to use arguments against "his" IFFHS article, against this other one. He has subsequently targeted the three users !voting keep at the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD and WP:Canvassing them to try to support his position in the original AfD. I feel the behaviour of this user is very disruptive and he is trying to game the system, subsequently wasting the time of other Wikipedians. C679 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Cloudz679 try to speedy delete article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Hidden vandalism because it is WP:PERSONAL. My is meaning that I am the main contributor. I invite all for discussion of these aricles from Category:Association football trophies and awards and template {{National Footballer of the Year}}. We need to keep them all or delete all. No logic to delete only one which was updated and sourced by me. NickSt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick, as you have been told multiple times, you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your "all-or-nothing" mentality shows that you comprehensively fail to understand how notability works. GiantSnowman 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Giant, give me the reason why IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is not notable award, but Czech Footballer of the Year is notable. NickSt (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times across both AfDs - I genuinely despair. I am about to lose my rag so pretty much logging off for the night. Please, drop the stick and move on to something more productive. GiantSnowman 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note - I am INVOLVED as I !voted 'delete' at this AfD on an article Nick created and have been engaging with him all day on the matter - however I still want to state that I believe his editing is concerning, he seems to harrass anyone who dares suggest an article he created (or as he describes it, "my article", violating OWNership) is non-notable, and I agree that this AfD is POINTy. GiantSnowman 21:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also involved (as one of those canvassed), but endorse what has been stated by GiantSnowman and Cloudz679. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD as "keep per WP:POINT". If I see one more disruptive edit from Nickst, I will happily block for that disruption / the edit-warring / removing CSD tags on an article Nickst had created. I suggest Nickst reads up on what vandalism and personal attacks actually are, since nominating an article at AfD is neither. I note that Nickst ignored the consensus at the DRV that " once you have something worthwhile you can bring the draft back to DRV for review." Bencherlite 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Disruptive edit? Block? Czech Footballer of the Year is notable award but IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is no? Ok! I don't understand WP:GNG in such case. I am leaving the project due to deletion of the IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper, article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Good luck to write about sports awards without me. NickSt (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You can have a thousand secondary sources and still not have any notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Déjà vu. C679 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Leighperson and "punctuation errors"

Leighperson (talk · contribs) has, for his/her fairly short editing history, been "fixing" what Leighperson describes as "punctuation errors", despite them not actually being errors. In particular, Leighperson appears to remove all m-dashes and n-dashes from articles as "punctuation errors" (e.g. ), despite being requested not to do so. As Leighperson does not appear to be responding to his Talk: page, and continues to edit in this way, I've brought the issue here for discussion. Jayjg 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that they are errors as such but the dashes are ugly and what purpose do they serve? The sentence I looked at is the same without them. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dashes are ugly" is way into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and not any good reason to replace correct punctuation with something erroneous. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of commas and dashes is often a stylistic preference, but they do allow writers to indicate different levels of parenthesis and separation of list clauses; as does the much-neglected semi-colon - even if some think anything more than a comma is ugly. Unless there is a MOS requirement, we should not change styles to suit our personal preferences - and we should definitely not label such changes "punctuation errors". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are all pretty much interchangeable, but help to introduce subtle differences when used consistently throughout a written work. In the spirit of WP:RETAIN, grammatically correct punctuation shouldn't be altered for the sole purpose of changing the punctuation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many editors overuse dashes, and quite a few of Leighperson's edits are real improvements. But I see him/her also removing quite a lot of dashes in quotations, and also removing carefully inserted ellipses in quotations, in Ian Fleming (a featured article), presumably not understanding their function. Those edits are seriously erroneous. It's worrying that they don't respond on their talk. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

User:Marteau

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

Although its some time ago, this WP:NPA comment is visible. It should be removed and User:Marteau should have consequences. Tagremover (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am to be censured for calling Tagremover "insufferable" so be it. "Insufferable" means "intolerable"... I could in fact no longer tolerate his behavior and I did in fact quit editing the article because of him, and I will in fact not edit any article with which he is involved. Marteau (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Austin Dabney

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

This is all so bizarre. User:Nyttend replaced a quote with a paraphrasing that changes the meaning. I reverted it, but was in turn reverted. I pointed out to no avail that the word "patriot" is not equivalent to "Georgian solder".

Nyttend also stated that I violated a copyright in using the quote in the first place, but won't explain just how (see Talk:Austin Dabney#Accuracy). These aren't even the source writer's words, but the reporting of another person's utterance. I offered to let Nyttend rephrase it as long as it didn't distort the meaning. Nyttend declined, citing a lack of access to the source (highbeam sub. required), though this somehow didn't prevent the initial paraphrasing. Nyttend has held up my DYK over this issue.

Nyttend also complained of overcitation. Now this I may be guilty of. However, Nyttend claims that a citation attached to the last sentence of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph, which I've never heard of before.

Finally, Nyttend claimed I am violating WP:CIVIL because I called the paraphrasing "sloppy", and has threatened to bring my "repeated 'commenting on the contributor, not on the content' ... to light". I suppose that refers to my characterizing Nyttend's conduct in this matter as "so odd and hostile". Well, I stand by my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I repeatedly told Clarityfiend, we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously; he's using it as part of the text, rather than as a subject of commentary or as a method of highlighting someone else's specific words, and as such it is easily replaceable with a paraphrase. This applies regardless of whose words they are. This is precisely the same situation as a nonfree image being used for decoration, but Clarityfiend repeatedly refuses to rewrite it, despite the fact that nonfree use is a violation of copyright law; I can't be clearer, but he insists that I'm not explaining. As I've noted already, he has access to the source, and I don't, as the citation links to the abstract of an offline source, and he's citing the full source; he's the only one who can judge the context, and yet I get told that I'm writing "sloppily" because I misunderstood a context that's not available and am simply paraphrasing the source that he included. He also objects that I've changed something like "text text<ref name=a>cite</ref> text text<ref name=a /> text text.<ref name=a />" to "text text text text text text<ref name=a>cite</ref>". If the text hadn't needed to be edited to remove the gratuitous nonfree content, I would have noted the problem without doing anything; see my comments and those of others who reference me here, precisely the same situation, in which I didn't do this because the page had no copyright issues. Finally, he deletes a citation from the end of a paragraph and objects that I restore it, saying that I'm inconsistent and refusing to listen to my response that text needs to be cited. It's a basic principle of writing with citations; I don't understand why he thinks it's such a big deal that it justifies incivility and needs an administrator to lay down the law on me. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, I don't see any patent wrongdoings on Nyttend's part as an administrator or an editor. Therefore administrator intervention is simply not needed; you should pursue dispute resolution as usual if it's necessary. That said, though, I personally don't see the reason for Nyttend's insistence on making this change. "...we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously...", that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. The quote wasn't being used in violation of our non-free content (or any other) policy. Swarm 05:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I in the wrong forum? Well then, point me to the right one please. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This is the link you are looking for. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Housewives of something or other

24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The editor Jac16888 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. is on a rampage destroying years-worth of work that has been done on ALL of The Real Housewives Pages. I could use a little HELP please. I nicely begged that the matter go to talk and consensus, but I was met with an edit-war deletion of my undoing work and the comment, "rubbish". HELP PLEASE. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You should start a new section when creating a topic here. I've taken the liberty of doing this for you so this topic is not confused with the above conversation. This whole debacle doesn't belong on AN/I. It is a run-of-the-mill content dispute and a basic slow moving edit war. You communicated with the user you're in a dispute with once. No attempts at a discussion were made on any of the article talk pages or anywhere else as far as I can tell. "Begging" or asking someone nicely via an edit summary is not an attempt at dispute resolution. If you can navigate to AN/I and plead for help, you can certainly open up a discussion on the relevant talk page yourself. If and when that doesn't work, take the next step and ask for a third party opinion. If and when that doesn't work, go through the next step. Administrators step in when there are behavioral issues, not a petty fight over some unsourced quotes. Incidentally, the quotes probably should be removed because they are unsourced and every one of those articles looks like a fan's webpage. Random, out of context quotes don't add anything substantial to those articles. It may be years worth of work but it's unencyclopaedic and likely remained around for years because most editors don't want to get involved with those kinds of pages for this very reason. Pinkadelica 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you and sorry if I put this in the wrong place. Yes-I would like a third-party discussion. I do not know exactly where to find it. Finding the appropriate page to talk about this matter is confusing as well because it involves a few editors and several different topics, The Real Housewives of New York, "..."New Jersey, Atlanta...24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Also-yes, they appear to be random quotes, but they are not that they are more like title-cards or slogans. The term "quote" is being used somewhat incorrectly here. The,(what appears to be random unsourced quotes) have been removed, and disputed previously and after a consensus was reached and an understanding about the value of the material was hashed-out, they were allowed to stay. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Without going into what I think is material of debatable encyclopedic value, you can ask for help from a third opinion or take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the content dispute—the IP here is 100% correct, and those quotations need to be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I've opened a section on the talk page, so that hopefully we can make the other editors see the problem before I revert and re-remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for attention to the problem. Of course I disagree that they are quotations. Before I try to explain this any further I'm going to try and locate the discussion. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK-YOU-but what I really think we need is the DRN24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) But in the meantime the TALK page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey#Signature.2FTitle-Card_Quotations24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Qwyrxian the IP is the one restoring the quotes. Secondly anybody who legimitately believes these quotes belong on Misplaced Pages does not belong here themselves--Jac16888 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also while I'm here I'd like to point this rather epic essay the OP is also edit-warring over --Jac16888 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? What I'm warring-over id wholesale deletion of encyclopaedic information by editors who act more like bots than English-speaking humans.24.0.133.234 (talk) May I point-out that since this topic has been moved to the talk page that the other editor User:Jac16888 has DELETED it TWICE already!(on the talk page)---no need for that at all and it of course makes the discussion harder to maintain.24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy and pasting several blocks of discussion in their entirety, not including any formatting except your own is not helpful - a link is more than sufficient, and you have yet to give any legimimate explanation as to why exactly this content is remotely encyclopedic--Jac16888 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm now involved in the content dispute, but if 24.0.133.234 is edit warring across multiple pages, in both cases to include material that is clearly not encyclopedic, another admin may want to consider a block. In particular, I recommend perusal of the IP's talk page, as he seems to be calling editors who remove information from Misplaced Pages as "bot-like" and calling this a "war", without realizing that, in fact, simply because something is true does not mean it belongs in an encyclopdia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note pages involved also include:The Real Housewives of New York City, The Real Housewives of Orange County, The Real Housewives of Miami, The Real Housewives of D.C. and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.--Jac16888 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you are referring to me since I have made those statements. Thank-you for giving this matter your attention, but your reasoning as to why I think the deleted material should be on Misplaced Pages is incorrect. I was not the first person to call this a war. I have posted the reasons why the info. belongs on Misplaced Pages repeatedly. One-it has been deleted and restored by admim. before. Two-Misplaced Pages is the ONLY place where a researcher could obtain easy-access to the signature quotes. And media, journalists, blogs...HAVE used Misplaced Pages to obtain the info. for years. Just because there is a comprehension problem does not mean that more Wiki-obsessed editors can rule the day does it?24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)***Oh dear, this really does require ADMIN attention, due to WP:OWN, IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, SOCK oh and EDITWAR behaviour. Please deal with this person before it gets (more) out of hand.
Paul hopkins777 (talk · contribs)
24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count)
Basically the user identifies as the owner of Foulksrath Castle which thus allows them to write about it in whatever way they see fit and remove other editors stuff if they disagree with it, all the while totally ignoring WP policy and other editors' attempts to reason with them.
So they have now stopped logging in, apparently, and continue to make the same mass insertion of non-encyclopaedic gibberish into their article, Foulksrath Castle revision history, which, at the last count stands at seven reinsertions of said material since it was originally published on the 2nd February (3 in the last 12 hours). Depsite other editors courteous requests to respect Wiki policy , the person in question seems to have a short fuse and a bit of a temper. And this does not even scratch the surface of what's going on at the "Real Housewives of whatever" articles, pure chaos and confusion from what I can make out.
Please do something before the editor/IP in question starts badghering me on my TP as I was the last one to revert this nonsense at the castle article. Notified here and here. CaptainScreebo 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify my previous post, it's looking more like a meatpuppet, the IP posting to Ariconte's TP (who xe takes to be Paul Hopkins) traces back to Ireland,, whereas the IP 24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count) traces to New Jersey. I just don't buy the "I was traipsing around and saw the dispute argument" and comments like "in other words-I myself did not read every single word of an almost epic poem/just skimmed it to get the gist" seem very fishy to me. If the IP didn't read it how does one know its' almost epic?? For info. CaptainScreebo 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The 24 IP seems to edit articles on tv series, so I've no idea how he got to Foulksrath castle, but I think once he got there, he decided to have a little edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a starter for ten, I've fully protected Foulksraith Castle for a week. If the owner wants text adding, he will need to discuss it on the article talk page and reach a consensus with the various editors reverting him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job, Elen. CaptainScreebo 23:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Daan0001 and edits to closed AfD

This user has twice inserted comments into the closed discussion notes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gunday: diff1, diff2, the second time after being asked to desist: and with an edit summary of "How dare u undo my comment ???)". AllyD (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They were on my radar from WP:REFUND - their actions caused a salting of Gunday, and now also their attempt to circumvent that Salt. Brief block for disruption for the continual recreation AND disrupting the closed AFD (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:KissCam and pointless redirects

I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu /_c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what's particularly unconstructive about that diff, Book Antiqua? I appreciate that a player number of infinity is rather odd, but... Regardless of that, I've corrected the squad number. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchingeveryevent

User:Xkcdreader / Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

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

Given the hostility of this WP:SPA, his refusal to listen to advice, and his constant disruption of the talk page at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness where he tried to introduce what was essentially the same proposal five times, I would request admin intervention and possible sanctions. I appreciate I may have shown my frustration at his disruption a little too vocally on a couple of occasions, but I've just tried to offer an olive branch on his talk page to be met with extreme hostility and an affirmation that only he knows how we should act on a talk page and that discussions should be undertaken in the manner that he sees fit. He seems to think that WP:IAR means that he can do what the hell he likes. He needs to be put back in his box for a while. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'm tempted to indef, what with it plainly being a lulz-only account, this is being dealt with on talk already. Stop rising to it; consensus is currently against the inclusion of the material in question, and it'll likely remain that way, so the only disruption is some walls of text on a talk page that you don't have to read. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The guy shouldn't be blocked for trying to improve an article - however nieve he is about talk page methods. And to be quite frank all of the 4 main users involved (being Rob, Scjessey, myself and Xkcdreader) have flared up and not been WP:CIVIL at times. As for consensus, there is no clear consensus either way at the moment - but I'm not gonna go into that here. douts (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reluctantly, in his defence, I don't think he is a lulz-only account. He's new here, and his is a WP:SPA, but the issue is really down to the fact that he is trying to steamroller a change to an article, and causing mass disruption along the way, and refusing to listen to advice of other editors and trying to get Wikipedians to act according to his rules on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that was nice :). Rob is right, this is not a lulz account. WP:SPA is accurate though, I have yet to go look elsewhere to contribute due to this miserable experience. I just care about presentation and making things easier to read. Chris Cunningham would be wrong to say "consensus is against inclusion." Currently NO consensus exists either way. That is why there is still an issue. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully admit, I save my posts too much, and probably fuck up the talk page by causing edit conflicts. I am trying to get in the habit of previewing and not saving, and other users can attest to this desire to improve my contribution process. (I also believe, I may be mistaken, that it is ok to be hostile on my own talk page, especially after I have asked someone to leave me alone, just not on public ones. I invite you to read my talk page. Correct me if I am wrong.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we have become a society where no one (even admins) are willing to read walls of text, and instead prefer Newspeak to actual discussion, this entire conversation is pointless. What is going on here can not be summed up in one or two sentences. (Sorry again for the poor 'save page etiquette' Old habits die hard, and reflexes are hard to control. I swear, I'm working on it.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)'

@Chris - Are you the admin dealing with this? I find your pejorative "lulz-only account" and "walls of text" statements make you an impartial judge, and biased against me. Can I request the eyes of more admins who are actually willing to take more than ten seconds to look at this, read what has been said, and then come to conclusions? Ironically, this mess, in my opinion, is caused by people commenting without reading. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To address the accusation levelled at me above, I admit I did close a discussion once in the mistaken belief that the matter had been put to bed not 24 hours earlier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok so if you stop referring to a compromise which did not ever ever ever exist, I think the hostility is over. My issue with you is continually misrepresenting what happened. This includes that you start calling my revision an addition/addendum, which is what it actually is. I added a clause stating this, so as not to be misleading. Transparency is important. Please stop using misleading words to lead the court of public opinion against me. I have ALWAYS been acting in good faith, it doesn't feel as if you have been. I'm trying here. You don't appear to be. That is not how cooperation and compromise work. You don't automatically win because you are an established editor. As long as you're not misrepresenting what is going on, my beef with you is purely your stubbornness to enforce WP:UNDUE over WP:IAR. The article is empty, and you would prefer no content to some content. It makes no sense. This is simple, clear cut, IAR. The UNDUE rule is preventing otherwise valid content from being contributed, edited, and fixed. WP:SYNTHESIS is allegedly still an ongoing issue, I am not sure we have even locked down if it is occurring. Personally, I think I fixed it. The burden of proof to prove WP:SYNTHESIS is on you. I have addressed why you are wrong about WP:SUBJECT countless times, and your fingers are in your ears. WP:SELFREF is a guideline, a suggest, not a rule, and CLEAR CUT another case of WP:IAR because this is such an odd situation. It is blocking a clear assertion that is not attempting to be self referential just to be cute. There is a REASON to use the self referential material, to create context for the quote. You refuse to acknowledge that removing the SELFREF, changes the meaning of the sentence. The integrity of the content should not take second place to rules. That is why IAR exists. Not because I want my way. Take the time to READ my proposal, investigate the sentence, check the sources, AND then oppose it. Opposing it without reading it, is why we are on this admin page in the first place. To use this quote one last time ""And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Misplaced Pages? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!!" by Rob Sinden." It was helpful because it explained why you are wrong. Your continual stubbornness, refusal to cooperate, and belief that you are automatically right without proving your claims is what is keeping this mess going. Stop acting like you know everything, and you are above compromise, just because you have been here longer. I am offering you TWO olive branches. Either help make the contribution better, or step aside and let it be included. If you can't accept one of those two options, we have a larger issue, and this will need to be escalated higher. I am glad you are being honest here, representing my character correctly, and defending me against rash admin decisions. It's appreciated. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would support a 1-month topic ban for the two or three most prolific commenters on that talk page. The encyclopedia is in dire need of people to fix broken and unreferenced articles, not screw around arguing about a Star Trek movie title ad infinitum. 28bytes (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be difficult to justify. There is a big difference between being disruptive, and trying to counter that disruption with the interests of Misplaced Pages at heart. Also note the length of contribution. Note that Xkcdreader has jumped to first place after just seven days' involvement, where I have been contributing on that talk page for over a year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@28bytes. This isn't about star trek anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. It is about principle (fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.) This is about a couple stubborn users being able to a) cause gridlock b) cause delays that prevent contributions c) silence discussions. I am being stubborn here because if you let him win Misplaced Pages loses. I'm not giving up until I prove my point. If any madman ever comes over all the text I have typed, and reads it, it will be plain as day that I am trying to FIX the broken practices that CAUSED the i|I debate. This is about preferring nothing and arguing over contributing and editing. It's about preferring divided consensus and inaction to action and editing. Like I said, it's about principle. Also, my edit count should not be used against me without context. I am terrible about accented pressing save out of habit. 400 edits does not mean I contributed 400 comments. Not even close. Xkcdreader (talk)

There is a second issue afoot, that DOES need admin action. (This was in my wall of text above, it probably belongs down here) WP:BURO "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it" and WP:Content_removal#Reasons "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." These two rules seem to directly conflict with WP:BRD so we are left at an impasse. When I boldly added my contribution it was WRONGLY reverted. In my mind, this is the BIGGEST thing being misrepresented here. I went boldly. It was removed by people who wouldn't help make it better. It should still be on the star trek page, RIGHT NOW. The debate should be over whether it is removed or rewritten, NOT if it is appropriate to add. Rob Sinden and Scjessey somehow managed to flip the process. "Support" should indicate removing the content and "oppose" should stand for allowing it to stay. This was the same tactic THEY used to keep i|I going for so long. MY "argument" is, that without consensus the content should stand, and not be removed. They should be the ones dissecting my work and trying to get it removed. Not the other way around. This is what I am talking about when I say "principles." From my view these two are cheating the system to get their way. By default wikipedia should favor inclusion unless they can prove why it substantially hurts the article. UNDUE weight is such a minor issue, I cant believe they can use it as a roadblock. My contribution isn't even that bold, I already have nearly half of people agreeing with me. Please AdviseXkcdreader (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Per "I'm not giving up until I prove my point" and my previous warning, I have blocked Xkcdreader indefinitely. Anyone who can convince them to contribute productively to the encyclopedia is welcome to reduce/unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not quick to jump on a blocking bandwagon, I think it's necessary. Outside debates on the main talk page, I have also discussed with him, in detail, the actions I thought he should take, but to no avail. However, I'd prefer it if we could get an otherwise uninvolved admin to substantiate the block, for procedural protection if nothing else. Xkcdreader: I already discussed the reason for the original reversion, and it came under BRD. You even said it was a bold addition, and you therefore fail to grasp the theory behind BRD, and Misplaced Pages policy. The content was controversial, yes, but it was also bold (and wrongly so). Similar, although not the same, text had been added and removed before under non-consensus BRD by a different user. You correctly began processes to get feedback on a proposed addition, but when only one part of your proposition went through, you boldly added the second half. Lack of consensus led to it not being added the first time around, and the BRD cycle dealt with your addition. Since then, you failed to heed my advice to step down, despite on multiple occasions being offered alternatives designed to further your cause. For the above reasons, I support blocking for the time being. He has repeated multiple times that he remains an SPA because of his experience contributing to the Star Trek Into Darkness discussions, but has failed to understand the actions he could have taken to limit hostility, and allow for a more productive atmosphere. drewmunn talk 13:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the action is justified in this case, since he didn't acquiesce to filing an RFC or a DR case. I think the block should be endorsed by Chris or another uninvolved admin though if it is to stand. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good thing if someone else could take ownership of this block. I considered unblocking per WP:INVOLVED, but xkcdreader's I may have exaggerated when I said "I won't give up." was not encouraging. "May have"????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take ownership of it. More specifically, I've unblocked him with the condition that he leave the Star Trek debate, and will reblock if he's not willing to accept that condition. 28bytes (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see the unblock. Caching? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't take the first time for some reason. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonchop

Earlier this evening I opened up a thread at WP:DRN concerning the behavior of Wonchop (talk · contribs) (see WP:DRN#User talk:Wonchop until it inevitably is archived) in regards to how he has ignored any attempt at communication over the past several years (he has only ever made five edits to the user talk space, three of which were arguing with me). I have been attempting to talk to him over edits on pages we both regularly edit concerning reliable sources, using Misplaced Pages's internal styles and translations, and discussing his unexplained reverts of some of my edits on another page. Other than the one time he responded to me on his talk page, this has been the only response.

I'm honestly not sure how to proceed anymore. He's ignored all attempts at communication until I brought it to a project page where he saw fit to rattle off things he was pissed off about, which I've attempted to explain, but his response at DRN shows he's not going to give a shit. Apparently this is not a DRN issue (I didn't realize "dispute" was limited to content and not interpersonal), and I don't want to go through RFC/U to lead to an eventual RFAR or ban because his contributions are fine save for the refusal to go by the internal styles despite (my) requests that he do so.

What should be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not that talkative, okay? To me, the talk section is more or less just a bit where I get told stuff like 'oh your link was to a disambiguation page' or 'orphaned images' or some other stuff about edits I apparently shouldn't have made, where I'm more or less 'k then' and go about my business. Just accept that and move on. You're starting to come across like an obsessive stalker.Wonchop (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We typically encourage editors to avoid those with whom they can't see eye to eye most of the time. You'd probably be best simply breaking off direct communication and taking any future concerns directly to the talk pages of affected articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a two part issue. I've interacted with Wonchop in the past, and while I do wish he would communicate more, he typically drops it if you push the issue much, so it's never been much of an issue. Conversely, I've seen Ryulong come down really hard on various users on "not-so-serious" issues, so it's no wonder a relatively quiet user like Wonchop would rather not engage him as well.

I don't think either side is bad enough to warrant any sort of action or anything. Wonchop, if you're going to push against Ryulong on certain things, you really need to be prepared to discuss things with him. Ryulong, you could really help the process by being a little more approachable. If Wonchop isn't pushing that hard against Ryulong (Like with how Wonchop interacts with me) then no action is necessary. If you guys can't handle this, then it'd probably be best to follow Thumperward's advice above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't do much when Wonchop and I are the only editors on a page. I've asked such minor things of him to do in his future edits, but he constantly ignores the request and continues to edit in the way I asked him not to. For example, in December, I posted this message in regards to the edits seen in this diff. A week later, he performs a similar edit and I admittedly get exasperated and leave him another message kindly requesting he take note of the translations in use on Misplaced Pages. I don't know why he ignored me the first time around, and the fact that he's been ignoring this simple request since at then December is the root of my problem. Wonchop is a great editor but I should not have to clean up after him so pages match house style just because he disagrees with the existing translations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shouting at someone for making a good-faith mistake is bad form. I can't see anything particularly bad in either diff - yes, they don't use the best grammar in the world, and yes, they may be incorrect in a couple of places, but fix them and don't make this much fuss over them. Typing an all-caps or mostly-caps edit summary won't help anyone, and you've done it time and time again. Make the changes, notify him of his mistakes politely, then move on. If you work together, even without talking to each other directly, you will both be much happier. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher-313

I don't know if this is the right forum to address this, apologies if it isn't, but Qaher-313 has become the target of some seriously anti-semitic and homophobic vandalism from 2 different IP editors over the past few hours. , , , . I don't know if page protection is warranted, but because of the content of these edits, I thought it was worth at least having some admins take a look. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a couple of days. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both those IPs are static according to the "Geolocate" links and I don't personally see why either of them should get to edit Misplaced Pages at all. 99.190.148.190 has been given a 31-hour block (not enough, IMO), and I have now given 109.165.175.64 a one-more-and-you're-out warning. I'll try to keep an eye on both. Thank you, Dawn. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
  • Also revdel'd the edits in question as they are severe BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Airlineroute.net

There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk ⁄_berate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com. Sorry! However, I have already posted this at WP:RSN in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#airlineroute.net) but didn't get a clear response. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure this isn't an incident needing administrative attention, at the very most, maybe it's an RfC? Village Pump is probably best though. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Continuation War

Talk:Continuation War has turned into a total chaos with copyedits moving text from one place to another, text being deleted by people who didn't originally write it, doubtful attributions to bits of text, massive loads of text, much of which has nothing to do with the discussion, and so on. Leading me to believe that someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the consensus discussion regarding what the infobox should say about the outcome of the war. The most active participants in the discussion are Paavo273 who has provided the most useful and serious contributions to the discussion, and YMB29 who apparently is willing to do anything to get his way in the discussion, and also has a long history of edit warring on pages relating to the Soviet Union. To such an extent that he has previously had editing restrictions on all pages even broadly relating to the Soviet Union levied against him. So could an administrator who hasn't been involved in the discussion, and hasn't previously tried to mediate between YMB29 and others, please take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Paavo273 is actually the one posting long text from other talk pages.

Look at how much edits he has made to the talk page in the last few hours.

I guess this is done to confuse others. A similar method was used by a sock master in the past, who was pushing the same POV (see here for example).

All of this started after I posted sources, which Paavo273 and Thomas.W did not like.

Paavo273 referred to the sources as "Soviet Stalinist revisionist history of the war."

Thomas.W also did not like what the sources stated and said that my research to find reliable sources for the result of the war was "a total waste of time." -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just sit back and wait for an administrator to take a look at what has happened, including looking at the edit history of the page, before trying to shift the blame one way or another? And before trying to rewrite history. Thomas.W (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not rewriting anything. It is all there. -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

All the problems began when Paavo273 and Thomas.W started edit warring, reverting a result that had consensus and was in the article for over three years. Other users who have edited the article for a long time can confirm this (see ).
I limited myself to two reverts and then asked an admin to take a look, after which he protected the article.
Thomas.W in particular has been very rude. He has called my request to not revert the result until there is a new consensus "BS" ("And "establish a new consensus" is just BS since there is no consensus...") and insulted me by saying: "you're either simply a bit below par from the neck up or just following the instructions given to you by your handlers...". -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the matter with you here, or anywhere else, because it is a total waste of time and effort. But for the benefit of whichever administrator might get involved in this I want to point out that the alleged consensus you're constantly referring to apparently doesn't exist, since you, in spite of being asked to do so multiple times, haven't been able to tell anyone where it is. Thomas.W (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have provided links to you, which you ignored.

I am not the only one who told you this (see ). -YMB29 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A) None of the links you provided had anything to do with the discussion that is going on. B) The diff you provided has nothing to do with it either. So why don't you relax, lean back and wait for an administrator to take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think it will be clear to any admin who is really causing trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Block Carpetmuncherrug

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

Please indefinitely block Carpetmuncherrug (talk · contribs). The name is a euphemism for a sex act (username block), and he has vandalized. I would do it myself, but I found out about it through something staff-related. Superm401 - Talk 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. This is a no-brainer. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done Kim Dent-Brown 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:AuggiePaoli

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

Legal and IRL threats at User:Malik Shabazz's page due to the repeated speedy of an article the editor in question tried and failed to get past AFC. See and §FreeRangeFrog 23:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RockFanUK (talk · contribs) looks like an obvious sockpuppet to me, and should probably be blocked or at least investigated. As for Auggie, if he's acquitted of socking, he should be blocked for legal threats. —Rutebega (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HIDECCHI001

HIDECCHI001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked several times on his talk page, over several months, to use edit summaries and to refrain from editing wikilinks just to avoid a redirect (per WP:NOTBROKEN). As far as I can see from his talk page, he has never responded to these requests and he still never uses edit summaries and makes large numbers of edits that do nothing but link around redirects, e.g. in the last two days alone. There has also been at least one removal of a legitimate-looking redlink .

Note that there are also constructive edits (e.g., ) so I'm satisfied that the editor is acting in good faith but the persistent failure to respond or modify behaviour is a concern. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting aid from an Administrator to keep an eye in a RfC

There is an open RfC for Juan Manuel de Rosas (see here). I'd like to make the following requests:

1. That an administrator keep an eye on the discussion as to prevent abusive behavior from any user.
2. That an administrator should warn User:MarshalN20 that he is not allowed to remove nor to change someone else's comment.

I'd be very glad if someone would be willing to help. --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards