Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 21 March 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?

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started the FT/N thread
• Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Location (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

• Abhidevananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Universal Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
c 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

• Examples of disruptive deletions

1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting

1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.

• Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles

1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks

1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Misplaced Pages; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Misplaced Pages as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.

I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.

I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.

I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.

In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not have made the page ; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:

Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.

The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
c 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
c 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been advised to ask for WP:ARBIND protection, which may take a day or so to make the request. Don't wait for me to do it if you have the time and patience to make the filing. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is the most ridiculous template I've seen (outside of J- and K-pop). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: . This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: , a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: . In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's ). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
c 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Sarkar problem is very similar to the Prem Rawat problem; but of course the outcomes of that arbcom case are specific to Prem Rawat and associated editors, they don't really apply here except as a sad lesson of what can happen. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the page protection on PROUT come off automatically today? Garamond Lethet
c 01:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I found the log and protection expires at 13:00-ish. 05:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Abhidevananda has indicated that he does not acknowledge the consensus that has formed and may revert to his previous version. diff He has been made aware of this discussion again and I have warned him that he may be subject to the measures outlined above (i.e. the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBIND). diff Location (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Add tag bombing to the list: , , , . Location (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) last edited 06:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I recommend that a one-week block of Abhidevananda be considered, based on the disruptive behavior which is summarized in this ANI thread. I will notify him that he may be blocked if he makes any more edits to Sarkar-related articles without getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Per comments on User talk:Abhidevananda it now appears that the editor will step back from the issue at least for the moment. He states that he referred the matter to Arbcom, and that he has "no intention of making any further edits to the PROUT article before seeing where that goes". So far I don't see any public Arbcom filing, so conceivably he sent an email. I've left a warning at WP:AN3#User:Abhidevananda reported by Location (talk) (Result: Warned). Unless another admin wants to take further action, that may be enough to conclude this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to close this thread since it seems that we've achieved as much as it's practical to achieve for now. However, there has been on-off problematic editing for months, and there are still five socks ready and waiting to !vote "Keep" at whatever the next AfD is... I would like to hope that articles will steadily converge with policy in future but, pragmatically, it seems more likely that another thread will have to be opened here (or on some other dramaboard) in future... bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT by User:LePatro

Hello,

I would like to report a new user with non-constructive/disruptive behavior (mass adding (WP:SPA) of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE) on articles related to Hejaz, replacing "Hejaz" by "Tihamah" on more than 100 articles (!). Even if many users asked him to stop that, as it can be seen on his talk page, he refuses and persists on these edits (referencing them by a book written in 1228).

Since this user doesn't seem to be ready to accept what other users ask him (i.e:consensus) nor to respect Misplaced Pages policies, I ask the admins to do the necessary to prevent him from continuing in that way.

Thanks in advance
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not understand the reason behind this request. I was (removing wrong information, adding sourced information, and moving some parts of some articles to other articles that are related to the information). Omar-toons however was undoing all of my edits clearly without even reading some of them even though some of them were about other topics. The resources I have put are verifiable and genuine about this geographic matter and all of them cited and differentiated between the two neighboring regions of Hejaz and Tihamah. There is a huge misunderstanding in wikipedia that Mecca is part of Hejaz and that originated from Kingdom of Hejaz that became an independent state in 1916. Before that, all the sources regarded Mecca as being in the region of Tihamah whereas Medina is regarded to be in the region of Hejaz. Misplaced Pages is about sourced and true information and not misled information that originated from the name of this very modern state relative to the age of those cities. All Islamic and Arabic sources before that differentiated between the two regions. I am correcting this mistake in wikipedia citing these resources that are from multiple scholars in different centuries.

Omar-toons however does not like the sources so he deleted the information I added with the sources in a move that I think against wikipidea rules. I have been in discussion with other users and I have clarified the matter ti them and submitted the sources and all of them accepted that and accepted the sourced information. However, this user unfortunately insists on undoing my edits. I ask you please to review my edits closely. I have not removed sourced information from any articles, and I was not replacing Tihamah with Hejaz everywhere. I replaced it when appropriate and you can see that I left the mention of Hejaz in most of the articles I edited. Please see the article of Tihamah that I improved. In the article of Hejaz, there were some parts that talked about Tihamah and some of its cities so I moved those sections to the article of Tihamah and I left the parts talking about Hejaz in the article of Hejaz. Thank you for your cooperation.--LePatro (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• The edits that you were edit-warring in were totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure we've all been through the sources as part of the numerous debates about these articles, and if the information was wrong, we'd have found it then. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately in aggressive editing, Omar-toons is continuing to delete the sources I put in the articles. He is continuing to delete the mention of the region of Tihamah from all articles. He wants to remove it from everywhere in Misplaced Pages just because he does not know about the region. All gepgraphic Arabic books cites the difference between the two regions of Tihamah and Hejaz. Even today, people still know the difference in Arabia. Mecca is geographically in Tihamah while Medina is in Hejaz. When someone talks about Mecca, the region associated with it in articles should be Tihamah not Hejaz. In fact, Tihamah is one of the names of Mecca. I find it very annoying to see the resources of the information I provide to wikipedia get deleted in the blink of an eye just because a user does not like what they say. --LePatro (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help! Any admin to consider this request? Cuz' the user persists on editing that way--Omar-toons (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the other users discussed the issue but they did not delete the sources. Omar-toons is insisting on deleting the sources (and deleting the mention of Tihamah from all the articles). I have listed multiple sources from several centuries BUT he is trying to imply that it is one source only. He does not have sources that contradicts this geographic view with the same old background so he is trying to say that old is bad. He is just deleting the sources because they contradict his understanding about the issue. He even undid some of my edits that have nothing to do with this issue (He is really engaging in a very aggressive and annoying manner unfortunately). I also do not see his point about the sources being from multiple centuries ago, does not that prove the idea especially that there are no contradicting geographic sources ? To summarize the discussion to the admins: All he is saying is that he knows Hejaz and does not know Tihamah. He says that Hejaz is more known than Tihamah so let's keep saying that all the cities of Hejaz and Tihamah are in the Hejaz only and delete the mention of Tihamah. What I am saying is that geographically from centuries ago up until now, Arabia is divied from the east to west into: Najd, Hejaz, and Tihamah. Cities like Medina and Taif are in Hejaz wheras cities like Mecca and Jeddah are in the region of Tihamah. I have proved that with multiple books that talks about the georgaphy and history of Arabia from different centuries. The user then responded by deleting the sources, undoing every edit I made, starting edit war, and now implying that all I put was one source even though that is NOT true. I ask you please to review his edits deleting my sources even though I put pictures of some of the sources on his talk page so that he can read it. Thank you. --LePatro (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone please do something about this guy. He's running around the whole 'pedia pretty much changing almost every reference to Hejaz to Tihama despite being asked to stop by several users. It's going to be a real pain to sort the mess he's creating out. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply NOT true. I was not replacing all Hejaz mentions with Tihamah. I was replacing it whenever there was a mention about a city in Tihamah that is referred to be in Hejaz. I was also adding the region of Tihamah to some articles when there was only the mention Hejaz representing the whole western side of the Arabian peninsula. I added multiple sources from different time periods. Very recent western books are not familiar with the geography of the region as much as the Arabic scholars who talked about it and differentiated between Hejaz and Tihamah regions. Insisting on removing Tihamah from wikipedia because people know hejaz more is going to continue this geographic mistake. And I will provide some modern sources from geographic scholars in some of the Saudi universities that differentiated between the two regions and referred to Mecca as being within the Tihamah region geographically. --LePatro (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of Omar-toons deleting sourced statements because he does not like what the souces say. One of the sources he delete is a very notable work of Ibn Hisham !! --LePatro (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's happening with this? Is any sort of mediation taking place? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I provided multiple modern resources as Omar-toons requested in the article of Tihamah but he responded by deleting them all. I tried to be nice and avoid war editing with him and I did not undo most of his edits that lacked sources and removed the mention of Tihamah. I see no more motivation to edit in wikipedia when all of my edits and sources get deleted every time by another contributor who dislikes what the sources suggest. --LePatro (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As explained many many many times (to you) before, and as many other users tried to tell you, your edits are WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE since they are based on a geography book written in the 13th century (which isn't WP:RS) contradicted by all recent publications. Consensus is against you and you persist on your edits, that is WP:DISRUPT. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

More Echigo mole socks, now disrupting SPI report

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

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Aquisextian (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fruit pastille (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Intestinal villus (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Actiniform (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 46.65.53.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.183.125.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There have been a number of new socks of which Aquisextian is the latest obvious troll sock, taking the user name from the Latin name for Aix-en-Provence and in their second and third edits trolling in the SPI report about mathematics beyond their competence (a recent article Borel-de Siebenthal theory that I created on Lie groups and symmetric spaces ). All their edits are typical of the community banned user Echigo mole. Please could someone block these sockpuppets and semiprotect the SPI page to stop non-autoconfirmed accounts trolling there. The other accounts are described in on the SPI page listed above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the first two accounts as obvious socks as I was making this report. Since Intestinal villus has edited the same articles as Fruit pastille (including the mathematics articles), please could that account be blocked too and the SPI page semiprotected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

New socking by Echigo mole

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Reak spoughly (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Now with a spoonerized name, creepily editing articles linked by me to Hermitian symmetric space (an article I am expanding, rewriting and rstructuring), including Orthogonal symmetric Lie algebra and Triple system. Previously trolled at Talk:amenable group with naive statements about the discrete topology. Nobody had edited Triple system for years (except me). No normal mathematical editor would edit in this way, only the community banned Echigo mole, out to be creepy. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen and Civility

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

Widescreen (talk · contribs) has recently made some abrasive remarks over a dispute in psychoanalysis.

• (diff) Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Misplaced Pages. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't found any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us.

When I asked for an apology he responded with another insult:

• (diff) It's your decision what you add here at wikipedia. You have to bear the response. Particularly when you are so undiscerning. (my emphasis)

Widescreen has also had a history of personal threats and other uncivil remarks:

• (diff) Sorry, I'm not interested in your faux-indignation. I called your arguments sophistry. Thats not a personal attack. I think such sophistry damage the contents of our articles. Calm down and try to answer my critic, or I will revert you.

• (diff) CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known.

• (diff) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable.

• (diff) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it isn't a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality.

He has been told by various editors to stop before (diff)(diff)(diff) and has not done so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm a bad user and CD is a commendable one. I have no intention whatsoever to follow this siding. --WSC 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have had dealings with both of these editors at the Psychoanalysis article. I have to say that each of them has a long way to go before they could be called collegial, collaborative and co-operative. However neither has, in my opinion, yet done anything blockworthy and there is no admin action justified or necessary in this case at the moment. I hope it remains that way. Kim Dent-Brown 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• NB: I should point out I'm WP:INVOLVED at this article and won't be taking any admin action. Kim Dent-Brown 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree things haven't been cooperative but this is beyond the pale, I asked in good faith as have other users to stop and he continues to so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, these comments above are pretty far on the wrong side of the WP:CIVIL, and it's the WP:NPAborhood they're residing in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Intemperate, and in a domain that we've historically had major problems with primarily due to our reluctance to enforce the civility policy (pseudoscience), but not quite bright-line territory. It would be best if someone had a quiet word (as you've just suggested on your own talk). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent Brown advised me to take this diskussion more seriously. I have to admit that I'm not in the mood to discuss anything with user CartoonDiablo. His last impact in article Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Family Therapy and Psychoanalysis, and some peculiar contributions of him, ends with a request for arbritration. If you want a insight in CartoonDiablos proceed, have a look at it: . I think it's nearly impossible to co-oporate with him in those POV-cases. If you want a insight of his technical way of discussion, please have a look at this. I don't know, but I hope it makes it more comprehensible why I'm not delighted if the user have another issue to citicize any article.

I hope you will not allege me PAs when I say he trys to push POV in favour of his personal hero Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is one of the founder of cognitiv psychology. Futher I hope you will not allege me PA because of the use of irony. Futher I think I follow a scholarly way of discussion which includes to criticize the style and the kind of argumentation.

Futher I have to say that I think, CartoonDiablo has finally good intentions. But his expert knowledge and, abouve all, his way of discussing, is at the border. It makes it impossible to have a exchange of arguments. --WSC 06:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just read through the talk pages at CBT and Psychoanalysis and I agree with CD that your tone, particularly toward him, but also toward others such as Misty Morn, is too often belligerant and belittling. If you know what I'm referring to, could you please cut it right out? It poisons the atmosphere. I'm also unimpressed by CD's behaviour on those pages, but his tendentiousness and warring seems to be being somewhat constrained by community processes, while your disrespectful engagement with others continues unabated.

The examples of your style of discourse cited above by CD, and many others I encountered today, do not represent good scholarly discussion. Insulting your opponent and ridiculing or mocking the quality of their rhetoric is not valid argument. Refuting their argument is all that is needed. Finally, completely avoid irony in internet arguments.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your concerns. But I won't handle someone with kid gloves, who trys to fool me frequently. If someone on the street trys to fool you, you will get peeved also. Ain't it more abusive if someone trys to fool the other or trys to trick him? You said it's poison to the atmosphere if I finde distinct words on an topic. What about the atmosphere if someone trys to fool others? Or, thats the worst case, if someone trys to push POV in articles by using dreadful arguments? Or goes to the noticeboards to avoid a objectiv discussion?

I understand your concerns but that doesn't mean a atmosphere of constructive debate only means phrases of civility. It contains fairness, honesty, and in our case, fundamentals of scholarly working. If someone brakes this rules you can't cooperate. To allege me my incivility after other fundamental rules being broken by others, is unfair. The problem is, there is only a rule like CIVIL, not for HONEST or FAIR. --WSC 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with somebody who you believe to be misrepresenting things deliberately is to politely express the facts in a manner that leaves them scratching their heads unsure how to counter you, not to spew bile at them. Civility is a two-way street; it doesn't matter if incivility was "provoked" because somebody else is violating policy, we don't make exceptions on a tit-for-tat basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Widescreen is being uncivil in a discussion about his behavior. This has been a recurring problem with something like 5 editors telling him to stop up until yesterday. I suggest a short 24 hour ban, and I realize things are tense at the psychoanalysis page but to assuage fears of edit warring I'll promise not to do any bold edits for the duration of a ban. An administrator can hold me to that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(Involved editor comment.) You mean a WP:BLOCK, not a WP:BAN, I think CD. But blocks are preventive, not punitive. And WSC isn't actively editing at the moment so there is no activity which a 24-hour block would prevent. A block of the type you describe would be symbolic only, and we don't do that. But I'm glad you've specified an admin action you'd like to see - that is at least what this board is for. Of course it's not up to me, that's just my two pennies' worth. But uninvolved admins can make their own minds up and respond in their turn. Kim Dent-Brown 13:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This uninvolved admin agrees with all of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

insults

I don't think I have to hear such insults for moving the article Vercelli back to its correct name, after User:Gixz had moved it unilaterally to some obscure local dialect name. noclador (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else beat me to warn them, but I added a stronger version below them. At this stage, I suggest waiting to see if they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would ask this, please go politely and explain a little bit about the naming conventions here, including a single link to the policy on it, so they will understand that you have a policy based reason. Maybe, just maybe, that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template to their talk page. You need to remember to notify anyone when you bring them up here at ANI. The template and notice is at the top of this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for your help and advice; and I am sorry I forgot to notify the user in question about this ANI post. I will remember this in the future. And I actually do not want to carry this discussion any further, therefore I hope the user will refrain from such language in the future. Furthermore I will also leave a link at the Vercelli talk page to the naming convention. Thank you and with best regards, noclador (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Noclador forgot to mention it, but he insulted me first. I don't see why I have to hear his such insults for moving the article Varsei to its correct name in the first place. Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Gixz I agree that calling someone's good-faith efforts "total BS" is an insult. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on that. Your response to this (giving an insult of your own) was the wrong one, certainly, but hopefully at this point the matter can be settled civilly without insults from either of you. -- Atama頭 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way Noclador, when you say "some obscure local dialect name", er ... it might be obscure for you, but it's not to the inhabitants of the city whose language it is. And did I really have to come to Misplaced Pages, of all places, to hear the native language of a city of 47000 people derided as "obscure"? Just who do you think you are? (Anyway it's *the* local dialect name, there's only one of them.) Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an insult in his edit summary. I do see you getting unnecessarily defensive. Maybe "obscure" wasn't the best choice of words, but keep in mind that English words have different meanings to different people, via WP:BIAS, so it is best to listen to what the merits of his argument are, try to give a little benefit of the doubt (ie: assume good faith) and calmly discuss the matter with him. It isn't always easy, but getting bent out of shape rarely brings you anything but pain at Misplaced Pages. You might also note that if you think someone is rude to you, that does not mean you can be rude back. Even if "obscure" offended you, that doesn't justify telling someone they are full of bullshit. That only turns the issue into a battlefield. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) We're not as concerned about what the inhabitants of a city call it -- or else our articles would be at "Moskva" and "Wien" instead of "Moscow" and "Vienna" -- as we are about whether the city has a common name in English. If "Vercelli" is the commonly used name of the city for English-language speakers, then that is what we use for our article. If there is no common English name, then I suppose the question would be up for grabs, but if the majority of Italian speakers call it "Vercelli" and only those of a specific local dialect use another name (even if it's the dialect spoken in the city itself), then we should probably go with the more widely used name. In case, these are questions for the article's talk page, not for AN/I, since admins have no special powers regarding content questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, BMK and DB are right - there are plenty of examples of Italian locations that have commonly accepted Italian or English names and additional local-dialect names too. I spend plenty of time working on 17th century Italian stuff and come across these all the time. Older sources often use local names as a hat-tip to locals and it's a pain trying to work out what they're talking about. But most contemporary sources consistently use common names. German language places have the same issues, especially those that changed hands several times a century. But most of that is beside the point - the naming conventions are fairly clear and Vercelli is obviously more commonly used than Versei. If I find a place that is commonly called one thing but referred to by locals/others are something else, I create a redirect. Redirects are cheap. That way you can type v.e.r.s.e.i. into the search bar to your heart's content and still end up at the same place. Stalwart111 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking, it seems that all the potential local dialect names are already redirects, so unless there's some compelling reason otherwise, I think that this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick but I think the allegation is the local dialect name is Varsei although Gixz seems to be having problems with that themselves . Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I thought someone had protected the article but it seems not - the edit-warring continues. Would someone like to dispense appropriate warnings? The back-and-forth seems completely unproductive. An RFC might be in order here, to find consensus on the content itself. Stalwart111 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, maybe I'm just looking at it wrong or something, but it looks like the edit by Gixz was made in response to this one by Noclador. I don't think "obscure" is what offended him; if someone said a move I made "is major BS" I'd be a little miffed about it too. Am I just reading it wrong or something? - SudoGhost 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've WP:BOLDly reverted to the WP:WRONGVERSION and full-protected the page for three days so this can be hashed out at the article talk page over a nice pot of vermicelli. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• And on that basis, I've summarised what I interpreted to be the main points of contention in an informal RFC in the hopes that editors can resolve each issue in turn within The Bushranger's 3-day timeframe. Stalwart111 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others

I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...

• 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
• 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
• 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
• 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
• 86.181.25.153
• 86.161.219.51
• 130.88.114.111

If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.

Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.

Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.

Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.

Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this from some months back: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!

I have been an IP editor on Misplaced Pages that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Misplaced Pages to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.

It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Misplaced Pages politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.

It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Misplaced Pages articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!

I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Misplaced Pages to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)

I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.

213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!

The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Misplaced Pages with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Misplaced Pages, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb _words 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As it the way, there are several interrelated issues here. Some of them are about content (what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?). Some of them are about election articles that are prone to vandalism/unhelpful editing from multiple sources in the run-up to elections (should United Kingdom local elections, 2013 be semi-protected for a few months?). I'm uncertain where those issues should be discussed (beyond Talk pages), but would dearly welcome some administrator input.

However, my initial reason to bring this to ANI was about conduct. 81.149.185.174/213.120.148.60/217.41.32.3/81.133.12.45 has been warned 6 times about conduct. There are multiple subsequent AGF violations. Several editors have already tried to tackle this with the IP editor. Is some sort of administrator action now appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For quite some time I've encountered various UKIP supporters who have clearly been trying to push an agenda, ever since UKIP's popularity has begun to increase. The most glaring example has been on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou has also expressed concern about the UKIP bias there, and I have agreed with him. Between Sheffno1, 08aviee, and others, it's difficult to tell who is doing what in these articles. Indeed, it seems as if there is a serious lack of WP:AGF going on, as there are many accusations of those who do not agree with them being members of the Lib Dems, while at the same time they attempt to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I've tried to start a few discussions on the UK Politics Wikiproject, but there hasn't been much of a consensus drawn to the above question that Bondegezou presented: what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?. It seems there is now a disagreement between the opinion polling page (which lists UKIP) and the main election page (which doesn't list UKIP). Of course, I realise this isn't the venue to discuss this issue, but I felt that it's apt to bring it up: if there is no consensus about how UKIP should be represented, it is inevitable that different editors with different views will edit war. – Richard BB 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what I think Richard BB is pointing out is that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has a set of tables reporting opinion polling that now include columns for the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP. Meanwhile, Next United Kingdom general election and United Kingdom local elections, 2013 have infoboxes that include Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems, but not UKIP. However, I don't actually see that as an inconsistency: what should be in a table reporting opinion polls and what should be in an infobox for a forthcoming election are different questions. You see a mismatch like this for many countries, e.g. what parties are listed in the tables at Opinion polling for the next German federal election and what parties are in the infobox at German federal election, 2013. I actually feel the current balance is right.

That said, I agree with Richard BB's broader point of an unresolved question over how to cover UKIP, and that resolving that question is made more difficult by a history of sockpuppets and lack of WP:AGF. Here is the right venue to discuss the latter issue, of editor conduct. Would it be possible to have some administrator action or advice on how to proceed? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for clarifying — you're right. – Richard BB 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't want my input given the past but here is is anyhow: My position is as it was before, in that this election is one of a number of tests in that UKIP have not made that electoral breakthrough at Westminster or council level. I still agree with the decision that was made several months ago in that it is not possible to consider adding UKIP to any non-EU election boxes until after this election! Depending on what the result is, we then consider looking at the 2014 local elections info box. That said, the IPs argument is sound (just not sufficient). In my view we ought to consider mentioning UKIP in the article somehow if they do exceed 2,000 candidates or match/exceed the number of Lib Dem candidates! The problem is how etc, in my view the article is best left as it is until we know the results. If you want to semi-protect the article, I guess I have no objections but the restriction should be lifted on election day at 10:00pm i.e. when voting has ended. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows: I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie . If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to , undone .

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like and . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete/block

MfD/speedy

• File:Harbord.JPG
• User:Ian Harbord

Block

• User:Ian Harbord
• User:Dave malevolus

These are almost certainly related to a hoax TV show (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rose To Fame) and abusive socks of User:Barbara Osgood if we are to believe Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barbara Osgood. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

I'll speedy but we don't block editors whose been so inactive like those two accounts who edited in 2006. Secret 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me rephrase, they are socks of indef blocked User:Barbara Osgood, and hence potentially sleeper socks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

It's not necessary to block such old accounts - if they weren't blocked 7 years ago when the checkuser was done, why would be want to do it now? Spartaz 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of "sleeper" socks. That we notice them now, might not mean we would notice them when activated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting and IP user be blocked for abuse to Kevin Harvick article

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

Hello, I hope I'm filling this out correct. Long time editor but first time doing this. An IP user, 72.211.185.40, has been edit warring in the last several hours with myself and two other veteran editors over subjective, unsourced additon to the Kevin Harvick article. IP has been warned multiple times and refuses to obey guidelines. I feel a block is now in order. Thanks for your assistance and apologies if I've fouled this up. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the best place for this request, but I saw the report at WP:AIV (although WP:ANEW would have been more appropriate) and blocked the IP. Jauerback/_dude. 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute over POV edits by SPA

I would greatly appreciate other opinions on the editing by User:Veritas_Fans, an apparent single purpose account focused solely on Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society-related pages and posting edits critical of/embarrassing to the organization while removing well-sourced material critical of/embarrassing to their opponents. Upon reverting some of his edits, User:Veritas_Fans has re-reverted and labeled my reverts vandalism (see: diff). I have attempted to initiate a talk page discussion regarding one convoluted POV edit (diff) only to be told that the language used in multiple reliable references should not be used in the article because it is, in User:Veritas_Fans's opinion, misleading and the media are mistaken (see: Talk:Institute_of_Cetacean_Research). As I have no wish to enter into an ongoing personal dispute, I would very much appreciate other experienced editors'/admins' perspectives and input. Thanks. ~Autumnal Monk~ 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for guidance

There are or were edit wars at the following articles: Microsoft Office 365, Product activation, Microsoft Office 2013, and Windows 8. In each case, other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following:

• Edit warring without any discussion at the talk page
• Edit warring while ignoring discussion at the page (by at least one user not edit warring in this case)
• Edit warring after some discussion at the talk page but no consensus reached

For some reason, though, I am the only one who has ended up blocked because of any of this. (I obviously consider this administrator abuse, but the report I filed here was basically laughed at by the community, since it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.")

Anyways, to resolve these issues, I have tried one or more of the following in each case:

• Simply reverting the edits that were made without consensus - I ended up blocked
• Reverting the edits that were made without consensus but directing the users in question to talk pages - I ended up blocked
• Reporting another user for edit-warring - my report was closed (without even citing policy) and I was threatened with a block

Leaving the pages in their current states is simply not an option I am willing to consider as there is no consensus for this, so my question now is: what exactly do these very administrators who block me, and others who agree with them, expect me to do in this situation? (Note that WP:DRN - and probably any other such venue - isn't particularly useful in general, as I have discovered, and is even less so when at least one user refuses to cooperate, as is clearly the case here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• AN/EW link - AN/I archive - tp history — Ched :  ?  08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're expected to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Whatever your understanding of consensus is (and frankly I don't think you're on as solid footing there as you think you are), you're not supposed to keep hitting the undo button every few hours while carrying on the dicussion. Raising things on talk is supposed to be the process by which disputes are worked out, and not just something on a checklist that allows you another revert. That option that you're not willing to consider is very soon going to be a coded editing restriction if this carries on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you apparently haven't realized this, I'll spell it out for you: I have dropped the stick in terms of reverting by coming here.

Content issues, on the other hand, are quite a different matter, and your response is not even remotely helpful in this regard. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong, that you've been wrongly blocked by abusive administrators, and that you want your way on the articles in question. You need to stop all of that. Your decision to stop directly edit warring has merely prevented your being re-blocked. Go and edit articles on a subject other than Microsoft and DRM for a while. Stop talking down to everyone you disagree with. And if, after calming down and getting a bit more of a feel for how collaborative editing is supposed to work on here, you feel that there are specific issues on your target pages that remain unresolved (to the community's satisfaction and not just your own), start an RfC and don't touch the article at all until it's completed. And if that doesn't result in you getting your way, accept that as the will of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm insisting that I'm right and everyone else involved in this is wrong - about not establishing consensus and simply edit warring instead, not about the content issues. That's Misplaced Pages policy, and you, as an administrator, should know this better than myself.

I would add something here about the mention of administrator abuse, but given that you seem to be so dismissive of a policy as fundamental as WP:CON I doubt that there is much point in discussing other policies with you.

As a final note, I would ask that you not project any of your own actions onto me ("Stop talking down"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing you pointing a finger at everyone else including the other editors you got into an edit war with, the admin who blocked you, the admins who rejected your unblock requests, and I predict that you will soon make some sort of accusation against me as well for writing this. What I don't see is you taking personal responsibility for your behavior or making a commitment to following community standards of behavior.

Dropping the stick does not mean bringing it up in place after place hoping that this time you will get the answer you want. Dropping the stick is not badmouthing everyone who disagrees with you. Free clue: if you have problems with everyone you interact with, maybe you are the problem.

Here is some guidance: spend six months without any of the behavior that your talk page is full of warnings about. Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, so why can't you? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop discussing my conduct and start discussing how to obtain consensus to resolve the content issues - which is what this case is really supposed to be about? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Start following the rules, then we can talk about your content issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already been blocked - twice - for the conduct issues, so I feel that that has been addressed at this point. Even so, if these blocks had been administered fairly, perhaps I could take personal responsibility for my actions, but with multiple administrators directly violating policy - see the quote above from WP:EDITWAR - doing so would likely serve to embolden the other users involved in this.

Note that I did not particularly want to discuss this given the community's response to the previous case I brought up here, but I felt it was necessary given that you repeatedly made comments directed against me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

First, AN/I is not for discussing content issues. Secondly, by posting here, your own actions are very much up for scruitiny - and, if I may be very frank, I don't like what I see now, or before, which is best defined by a battleground mentality, a refusal to drop the stick, and a serious case of not listening because you are, after all, right. We don't want to block or ban people, we want productive and collaborative contributors. But that goes both ways - you have to be willing to compromise and follow policy if you're here to help build the encyclopedia. What I'd suggest would be to step back, take a deep breath, and stop editing the article in question - all of them - for, say, a week. Find another subjet that interests you, and work on that for awhile, and see how you feel afterwards - I suspect you'll find that much of what you thought were problems and doubts are, in fact, very small things after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get other users to follow WP:CON. What, exactly, do the links you provided - except the one to WP:CON itself, of course (which is mislabelled - it is not the same thing as "compromise") - have to do with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the fact that WP:CON does not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We cannot stop discussing behaviour, because ANI is about behaviour. It is not about content. The dispute resolution processes involve not only the noticeboard, but third opinion and request for community comment. Dogmatic, if your behaviour right here is indicative of how you approach conflict, I can understand why you're having trouble. You're new to the project - as much as longtime, respected editors have worked their asses off to show you the ropes, you decline to listen. How about remembering something: this is a private website, and you agreed to a set of rules. If you choose not to listen to those rules, and insist that your personal interpretation is correct, then you will not likely be permitted to remain on this private website. Arguing against the people who know is like peeing yourself in a dark suit: only you notice, and it shortly becomes rather uncomfortable. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this "set of rules" you are talking about not include the quote from WP:EDITWAR above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep citing that sentence from WP:EDITWAR, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the admin(s) in question didn't "consider all sides". Has it occurred to you that they may well have given consideration to your position, and, in doing so, decided you were wrong? I count four experienced administrators (make it five; I endorse their advice) suggesting that you back off and consider the possibility that your interpretation of the rules is not in line with the community's, and your responses seem to me to boil down to a repeated and unsupported assertion that you are right - that's not how to reach consensus here. Once more for those at the back; drop the issue for a while, come back when you feel more level headed and less persecuted, and then pursue your changes through the appropriate channels - and be prepared for possibility that the community will decide not to implement your changes. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is the case, then I would ask that an administrator explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not. Even a brief explanation would be better than complete silence on this matter.

In fact, it is quite likely that knowing this would help me adjust my conduct. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this. The impression I'm left with is that you were edit waring with at least 3 other people (Viper, Coin, and GB Fan) to get your own preferred version forced through. That is considered disruptive. Does that help? Because quite frankly, I think you're getting dangerously close to a WP:BOOMERANG with much continuation of this line of discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear it is only two editors, Coin Operation was a declared alternate account of mine and I mistakenly posted from my main account also. I have abandoned the account because I was confusing myself and it will no longer be used. GB fan 11:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is the very user who reported me (using the "alternate account") - and it now turns out that this user was using two accounts to edit this article, quite possibly confusing the blocking administrator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple other users expressed concerns about removing the material from the article at the talk page. These users, however, chose to ignore those concerns. What would a preferable method of addressing this issue have been?

Additionally, I would like to request a similar explanation for my previous block, which I find more puzzling given the extent of edit warring by other users in that case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the easiest explanation: if YOU want something in, and you're the only CURRENT editor who wants it in, and 2 (or more) editors say "NO", that means your edit does not hold consensus, period. Don't ever re-add it until you have new consensus, if ever. By re-adding and insisting that they tell you why it should not be included is edit-warring to your preferred version. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the information in question was not added by me - I was simply restoring it - so, if anything, your advice should have been followed by the other users, not me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So the question is why exactly were you restoring material that was removed because it was completely unsourced and in some cases out of date? Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The preferred method of addressing the issue is bold, revert discuss. You have never discussed why you feel the information belongs. You only point to a couple of editors that 5 years ago expressed that they thought the information belonged. One only saying it was "convienent" Why do you believe the information belongs. GB fan 12:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is basically at your preferred version and you still have not explained on the talk page why you believe the lists belong in the article. You just point to a couple of editors from 5 years ago that thought it belonged, one whose reasoning is that it is "convienent". GB fan 12:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To respond to both of you: as stated above, "AN/I is not for discussing content issues." This kind of question should have been discussed at the talk page instead of simply filing an edit warring report.

In any case, I have still not received a response regarding my question about my previous block, nor very much guidance as to what I should do next to resolve the content disputes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Raise and RFC, go to WP:DRN, ask for a third opinion, the associated Wikiproject which is listed in the talk page. Usual sorts of things for content disputes. You really should just drop the stick. Move on, find something else to do. Nagging people about it is just going to earn you another one for being disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic, you've received a lot of advice from a number of different editors and it's been remarkably consistent in its tone! I think the problem is that the advice you're getting is not what you had been hoping for, so you're reluctant to recognise it for what it is. I don't think for a moment that you are going to get any contradictory advice by keeping this open. I'd strongly suggest that you ask for this thread to be closed, then read it carefully and try (even if you disagree) to follow the advice you've been given. If you need further guidance, then rather than raising an AN/I I suggest picking an editor whose manner and style you respect, and asking them if they'd be willing to mentor you, either officially or unofficially. They don't have to be someone who agrees with you - just someone who you feel you can do business with. Kim Dent-Brown 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is very true: it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."
• If somebody came here who was right, while many others were wrong, she or he would be roundly criticized for insisting that that truth was true.
• Consensus is a popularity contest, regardless of the self-flattering story the community tells itself to the contrary. What percentage matters deemed to have a clear consensus are not also a supermajority? !%? Humanpublic (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

De jure ban for Paul Bedson

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

A while ago, I indefinitely blocked Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of closing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others."

After a declined unblock request, another administrator removed Paul Bedson's talk page access because of continued disruption. In response, Paul Bedson engaged in a campaign of sockpuppetry, as documented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive, and several checkuser-detected socks were blocked accordingly. He has stated his intent to continue socking.

This kind of situation normally amounts to a de facto site ban. I suggest that we formalize it as a community-imposed site ban in order to facilitate reverting any edits made by socks. I've not notified Paul Bedson of this proposal because he is blocked without talk page access.  Sandstein  09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - his uncivil, uncooperative and unrepentant attitude combined with his declaration to continue socking forever are something we do not need here, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - No point allowing this user to return, they're blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he was first blocked for socking in January 2012 he denied it and was unblocked in March after providing evidence that he wasn't a sock.. What he didn't say is that on Feb 7th he created a sockpuppet Nasorean (talk · contribs). When he was finally blocked indefinitely (for misuse of sources among other things) he promised to return and continue editing, a promise he kept both with Nasorean and other socks. This week he posted to his talk page with an IP, saying "a number of disruptive, hate-mongering, christian-biasd, anti-Lebanese editors maintaining an antiquated, classical viewpoints conducted a WP:Witchunt and were able to vote me off Misplaced Pages for my progressive views. Also for writing history from genealogies instead of fairy-tales. The same thing has happened to Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei and others. It is a shame the system around here is so corrupt, but has not stopped me editing in the slightest - I just use a wide range of IP addresses and various aliases to get around the ban. It has made collaborations with previous friendly editors harder however, but if you need anything, just e-mail me..." We definitely do not need editors like Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Disruptive sockpuppeteering. A ban will hopefully reduce the amount of work for users in the future who want to revert his edits (less checking up, they can just see that he's banned). James086 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - though I thought bans were supposed to be discussed at AN, not ANI? Regardless, his threats to sockpuupet (which he has followed through with) show he is not here to edit constructively. This ban should be considered a mere formality i.e. to make it easier for us to deal with him in future. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, wrong forum, I meant to post it at AN. Feel free to move.  Sandstein  14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever I get depressed about the amount of time wasted on trouble cases on the drama boards I'm going to remember this one: an utterly unrepentant fringe warrior who still took months and months of patient work to deal with despite having no cheerleaders, off-site interference or other complications at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support and invite the next admin who sees this to close as an avalanche. Kim Dent-Brown 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted User Illia Connell - category G3 Blatant vandalism on my user page

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

Hello,

User Illia Connell vandalized my user page (Deleted all content)

DIFF Deletion by Illia Connell

DIFF user page restored

I placed a warning on User Illia Connell' talk page, however how can a deleted user edit in the first place? This is very unusual.

On Illia Connell User Page, there is no diff or history feature, and it has these instructions If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 04:21, 24 August 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Illia Connell (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace (CSDH))

I contacted the Administrator who deleted this user, Malik Shabazz and left a note on his/her talk page, and categorized it per the instructions on said user page also.Patriot1010 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DIFF:Assistance request from Administrator Malik_Shabazz, the account that deleted this account.

If possible I would like some assistance in how to protect my user page, particularly from deleted users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. The userpage has been deleted not the user. None of the wikis have the option of deleting a user account. However, when you sign up for an account a userpage and a user talkpage are created for you. The material in the userpage can be deleted rendering it empty. If you were to post something into the userpage and submit it, it would recreate the page with that material. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane! This is quite unusual! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user hasn't been "deleted", only their userpage has, they are still a valid member of the community. Also, userpages shouldn't be in that category, note the categories in there but no pages other than your userpage: Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. The category you really want is Category:WikiProject Conservatism members. This wasn't vandalism. Try assuming good faith next time. James086 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see whats going on now, thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It look to me like that user is perhaps new with WP:HOTCAT. To answer the "how", we don't delete "editors", although there are times, often on request, that a user "page" may be deleted. I've semi-protected your user page per your request, and am willing to full protect it if you wish - just be aware that if it is fully protected, then you won't be able to edit it either. Illia doesn't appear to have a block, or even a block log .. but I'll mention to her to be careful with category stuff. — Ched :  ?  15:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering that also - thanks all for your help! We could probably close this onePatriot1010 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you think is best Thumperward. The guy asked for protection; if he feels better with protection, fine with me. — Ched :  ?  16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppet investigation

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

There has been an ongoing sockpuppet investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hydao over the last few days, with a few additional names being added each day. I found another such account and already blocked it (the account was not only an effectively admitted sockpuppet, but also misused another person's real name and was being used to harass the same user that Hydao has been known to harass), but I wasn't sure how to add it to the investigation (see this edit) since I'm not actually asking for a checkuser. Please let me know the correct way this should be handled. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Seeing as you have already blocked the account as an obvious sock, there's no need to add it to the SPI. I'd imagine just adding a sock tag to the account and closing it up would have done the trick. Blackmane (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism from IPs

Hello,

I am a user and sysop on the french language wikipedia and I have discovered that someone is adding the name "Ellen Idinson" in many articles on many wikis (at least here and on the fr.wiki). As I am not a regular english language user, I would just like to report this action so someone else can take part in the surveillance on this side of the language fence. You can see here and here diffs that I reverted and here an example of a filter that was set up to flag future additions of the name on fr.wiki. You can also see examples of additions that were made on the french wiki in that request. I also have to point out that most of the edits are around Brazilian and sports subjects. Thanks for your help and attention and feel free to contact me for more information and to direct me to the right place if this isn't. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (Addendum) Also found this IP (197.247.108.216) that has tried in the past. Letartean (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The name appeared in Stock Car Brasil, inserted two days ago by the only edit (so far) of an IP address 41.214.236.27 . It was reverted today as vandalism by another editor. Not sure if the reverting editor saw this notice or acted on their own. Either way, the troublesome edit was made two days ago, and is the first and only edit by the IP. So maybe wait and see if they do it again? Ditch ∝ 19:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted it, when I found it was vandalism, few days ago. Since the person has tried again in the past days to add the name on the french wikipedia and seems to be insistant(see activity on the newly created filter), I tought it would be wise to report it here to make sure surveillance and knowledge of the problem existed because it might happen again. I also thought it was important to report it because, unless someone is aware of the problem, it can easily go through RC's since it is only a change of name. Maybe a filter on this side of the language fence would be the best? I really don't know how to do it around here so I'm discussing it here so someone can take action. Hope this makes it clearer. Have a nice day. Letartean (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Doh! I should obviously pay more attention. Head slap! Ditch ∝ 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

Can somebody please block this asshole, who is obviously this asshole evading a block? Many thanks. </rage> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree on the need to block, can I remind you of WP:CIVIL? If you want to block JoMontSW as a sock of JoMontNW, why don't use write that instead of writing "this asshole" twice in a post with only two sentences?Jeppiz (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I believed my closing "rage tag" indicated at least some level of sarcasm in my choice of words. That being said, I think being civil to editors who desire nothing more than to harm this fine project is an utter waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that editors cross the line, and it is tempting to conclude we don't owe them civility. However, using such language just provides them with evidence that the cabal is out to get them, or some such nonsense. Better not to provide them with a fig leaf.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks by Beyond My Ken

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

I saw this on Beyond My Ken talk page, about an editing conflict with which I am not involved:

"What's Your Problem" You seem to be having a hard time. Take a deep breath Enthusiast (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the hell did you revert all my recent edis? You must be cracking up.Enthusiast (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, you're right, the world is swirling around me -- Where Am I? Who Am I? OH MY GOD, I'M CRACKING UP!!! "Kiss"? What is "Kiss"?.

No actually, your edits were shit, kemosabe, utterly shit, and you will soon be blocked from editing (that's my prediction). Don't restore your edits, they'll just be deleted again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What's that? "Get a life" you said in your last revert of my edit. Why.... why... My god, I had never thought of that. "Get a life" indeed, what a simply fantastic idea that is -- I shall pursue that goal to the ends of the earth. Nothing shall keep me from my new ultimate goal, getting a life. In the meantime, however, I suggest that you stick your head inside your ass to visit with what's left of your brains, since that seems to be you're editing with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not involved and you're bringing up stuff that happened 13 days ago? Why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it looks like two people were insulting each other. Since WP:WQA is no longer available, the talk page of one of the people concerned is probably the least worst place for that to be restricted to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Yeoberry seems to be involved in some nasty forum shopping , , .Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry and Beyond My Ken

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

I'm not sure if this should be reopened or not, but there is a context to this. Looking at , it looks as though this Yeoberry's complaint above may be due to disputes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gail Riplinger, Talk:Gail Riplinger and more recently Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. It may be the Riplinger article that is most involved as Yeoberry submitted an AFC what was deleted as an attack page around the same time as the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith but I can't help but feel that this was posted here due to a grudge from some recent disagreements. It looks like Yeoberry was trying to shine light on Beyond My Ken to get him in trouble as retaliation. Not a good thing to do. -- Atama頭 19:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen has a long history of abusive comments directed at other users. He is in many respects just like Malleus F, only not as good of an editor with less general wisdom and a childish demeanor. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of Beyond My Ken (and I admit there is some abrasive language on his own user talk page and in the Gail Riplinger AfD discussion) this move was counterproductive. -- Atama頭 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

User:Til Eulenspiegel is using his talk page to advocate a boycott of Misplaced Pages and to attack editors User:Dougweller and user:Dbachmann. Til has a long history of making hyperbolic accusations of racism and of plots to conceal The Truth by defenders of "male white" conceptions of mainstream history. I think the time has come to discuss sanctions given the frequently threatening and abusive approach he adopts. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I frankly don't care too much about his sign-off on his talk page, as long as he doesn't come back. This excruciatingly wrong-headed FT/N thread was about to drive me, if nobody else, to call for action against him (synopsis for the TL;DR crowd: he's demanding inclusion of claims by Ward Churchill, who was fired from his university post when it was found that the very claims in question were based on fraudulent "research"). And practically everything that comes up there these days attracted nuisance claims about our bias. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Til (and his previous incarnation User:Codex Sinaiticus) has stormed out vowing never to return several times already. He always manages to return. The departures are often linked to debates in which he paints himself into a corner, but then cannot admit to having made a mistake. His solution is to throw around accusations and then leave for a bit. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. I've had a couple of unpleasant encounters with Til Eulenspiegel, but this is shockingly inappropriate. - MrX 19:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the names of two people from his statement. Calling for a boycott and criticizing Misplaced Pages's coverage is Ok, calling specific people racists is not. As long as he doesn't edit war to keep the names there I don't see any need for immediate admin action. Perhaps a topic ban could be explored if there's a specific topic area where there are conduct issues or maybe an WP:RFC/U, I haven't looked through his contribs in much detail though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm in a bad mood due to the other editor who is trying to word-bludgeon me into submission, so I'll be quite happy to start the RFC/U assuming that it isn't simply going to be dismissed because he goes underground for a while. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would a topic ban on Native American articles make sense here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it has to be a ban on all articles about race, broadly construed. He has shown a lot of interest in articles related to Judaism, and not in a good way. ---Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Too small in scope. Really pretty much anything with the possibility of fringe material is a problem: the last few rounds before this that I recall involved the Bat Creek inscription, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, various Iolo Morganwg-related texts, and I see a new problem with a Korean text. And I see that this other account that Paul B mentions is in fact still somewhat active, and all the ares it's active in are ones where I would be dubious about his contributions. Any time we come to an issue of rejecting questionable scholarship, he puts us through this whole "you're trying to suppress the TRUTH in favor of orthodoxy" attack. I sort of get Guy's boundaries, but I'm not utterly sure that his fringe-loving is constrained within them. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether a topic ban is warranted, but posts such as this at a pseudoarcheology article, in addition to the incident above, suggests that Til Eulenspiegel may have a long running issue with Doug Weller. That it manifests in personal attacks is obviously undesirable. - MrX 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone want to propose a community ban or a topic ban on fringe issues broadly construed at WP:AN perhaps? Accusing all admins of being "RACIST BIGOTED ADMINS WHO THINK THEIR RACIST BIGOTED OPINION IS MADE OUT OF GOLD" is a bit much. If I recall correctly I frequently saw the now indefed Paul Bedson and Til involved in pushing the same fringe work (though it's possible I'm misremembering separate incidents, the interaction tool isn't working correctly for me at the moment). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did he delete the ANI notification? Ditch ∝ 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I just added one. He's presumably called him a racist because I called him out for personal attacks at FTN although I haven't partaken in that conversation. The main difference between Til and me on American Indians is that he thinks that a lot of non-Native Americans visited America before the Vikings, presumably influencing Native Americans, and I don't. Ironic eh? As for Codex Sinaiticus, that account isn't a former incarnation, it's just an earlier account of Til's and is still actively editing which I guess makes Til the sock. I agree that some sort of ban is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the two accounts are related? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Til makes no secret of it. He has stated it's him on several occasions. I'm afraid I don't know how to find those. One was in an edit summary. Til/Codex is a Biblical literalist with a special interest in Ethiopian Coptic Christianity. He appears to believe in some sort of narrative involving ancient Hebrew peoples colonising the world. Opponents of this view are routinely labelled "racist" for reasons that are often very unclear, though he does appear to believe that these people were 'non-white' or 'black' (his edits on Curse of Ham are often related to this). These beliefs mean that there is a wide range to his activity in articles about ancient history and human migration. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the dif you are looking for. Yes? Stalwart111 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Does one of those accounts fit as a sock and need blocking, or is this a WP:SOCK#LEGIT case? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at that while going through his contributions for that dif. My impression was that the original was a normal editing account, abandoned in favour of the later account. But the original account was subsequently "revived" for use as a interwiki-link-adding account. At one point he tried to use it to run an interwiki-adding bot but it was shut down because the bot function had not been approved. I think it was a fairly good-faith attempt at a legit alternate account. I couldn't see any evidence of GH/BH or vote-stacking, but then I didn't look that hard. Stalwart111 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks for looking that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Only crossed paths once with this user that I recall, at Talk:Islamophobia. After coming out on the short end of a proposed rename, this user had a bit of a temper tantrum. It would not be a great loss to the project if this guy exited, stage left. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I strongly disagree with the community over using cool-down blocks. This situation is a perfect example of when cool-down blocks should be used to protect the encyclopedia and the user. The batshit crazy message should have been removed in its entirety and the user should have been blocked for a week with talk page access removed. This would have given the user time to think about his temper tantrum and it would have prevented any further discussions about indefinitely blocking someone while they are angry, only serving to make them more angry as they are backed into a corner. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but that's how I see it. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Til Eulenspiegel has removed the outburst from his user page. I would ask at this time that we consider closing this report and allow him to calm down. I think the removal of this statement on his talk page shows good faith and a desire to improve his behavior in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above. There are very few situations where going to indef instead of applying longer and longer blocks makes sense, and the escalating blocks are far less likely to result in unblocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guy here, but I'm not as optimistic as Viriditas. My experience is that he's ignored the warnings I've given him = sure, he doesn't like me, but that doesn't excuse his ignoring warnings about personal attacks. He's one of those aggressive angry editors that makes (some) others just want to avoid whatever he's being angry about. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that Misplaced Pages isn't therapy, but it sounds like he's having personal problems that are interfering with his ability to edit. Perhaps he is in need of some kind of structured ultimatum and final warning indicating that if he crosses the line one more time, he can be blocked by any uninvolved admin, etc. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The one immediately apparent personal problem I am seeing is simply that he has come into conflict over several of his hobbyhorse issues here at once, so that he is getting a lot of pushback at once as well. In the case of the FT/N thread he was in essence insisting on the use of a notoriously discredited activist source which people could see was faulty from many different directions, including one person who knew the whole story from beginning to end. His ability to bring himself to edit is simply a question of calming down enough to regret stomping off, but he's not going to change the way he edits, because (like Paul Bedson below) he is never going to abandon his defective way of looking at his subjects of interest. His crusade is going to bring him back, the various fringe-watchers will eventually notice, and we'll go through one of these fights again. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Eyed Peas

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

Enough is enough. Every other day I see this article being vandalised by IPs. I'd like this article at least semi-protected.--Launchballer 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's only being vandalized every other day, it's unlikely for protection to happen. It's not a particularly obscure page, so it should get plenty of visibility. And if it really is being vandalized only by IPs, any protection beyond semi would be excessive, because semi-protection will completely prevent IPs (and new editors) from editing the page. Requests like this normally go to WP:RFPP, but again I'd think it unlikely to be protected. On the other hand, if you notice that it's the same or similar IPs doing the vandalism, you might consider reporting at WP:AIV which would put a stop to that behavior (at that page and elsewhere). -- Atama頭 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston College

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

Requesting a 24 1 hour block for users rapidly creating articles about Boston College students and services. It appears to be a class assignment to create a Misplaced Pages article about yourself. In the last 30 minutes I have seen about a dozen articles created by Boston College students about themselves and student services. I have posted on each talk page to please put me in touch with their instructor but the accounts are still rapidly creating articles. Please see the following users and their deleted contributions:

• Ianwhite1662 (talk · contribs)
• MLILSTARS (talk · contribs)
• Taniquab2014 (talk · contribs)
• Cweekes (talk · contribs)
• JohnEppelWeb2.0 (talk · contribs)
• Emilyanne89 (talk · contribs)
• MauriceJackson24 (talk · contribs) - Apparently a "Adjunct Faculty member in the English Department atBoston College."

Thanks, Mkdw 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be unwise to block them, university and school classes frequently use editing Misplaced Pages as part of their assignments, and 99 times out of 100, the professor in charge knows what he's doing, though sometimes the students are a bit clueless. The best way to handle this is to contact the professor, treat him or her with courtesy and make sure they are staying on top of their students, direct the professor to Misplaced Pages:Ambassadors or Misplaced Pages:School and university projects to make sure they have the proper support, and also ask the professor and students to use the WP:AFC process or user sandboxes to keep the chaff out of the mainspace. As long as you do that, there's no need to block anyone. Indeed, there's still no need to block anyone, per WP:BITE. Feel free to edit, eviscerate, or nominate for deletion any of the substandard articles which have been so far created, but we should work to educate these new users, not block them and ask them to leave. --Jayron32 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made every effort to contact them prior to your recommendation with out any success. I'm aware of the Ambassadors and WikiProject program having both been in and used them while in university. No one has suggested asking them to leave, and the block is merely preventative to allow discussion to continue with out a disruption to Misplaced Pages. Even a 30 minute one so they can respond to my talk page inquiries would be better than then wasting their class time editing articles that will be deleted -- as well as the time of the patrollers. Often professors know what they're doing, but in the case of MauriceJackson24 who may be their professor, has written several "how to" articles as well such as the one about How to perm which seems to suggest the other wise. Mkdw 00:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the articles:

• John Andrew Eppel
• Taniqua king-brown
• Boston College Dining Services
• Amy lacombe
• John_W_Wetzel
• Ann_Burgess
• Boston_College_Black_Student_Forum

to name a few.

Mkdw theorized it was a college professor's assignment. I think it may all be one vandal. If it continues, I'll request a checkuser. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why Ann Burgess was tagged as there was an assertion of notability as a "pioneering expert". Also found this within seconds: "Dr. Ann Wolbert Burgess is an internationally recognized pioneer in the assessment and treatment of victims of trauma and abuse." That one, at least, didn't appear to be vandalism. Location (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a dead point now since the activity has subsided. It was more pressing when 16 of the last 20 pages were all articles about Boston College students and were being continuously re-created. Mkdw 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance on this, Mkdw. Situations like this can be difficult - although the creators were probably just following instructions and meant no harm, almost all of the articles were clearly inappropriate and it can be a challenge to offer meaningful guidance to several accounts all at once. You done good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Campus Ambassador for another Boston College class (Education Program:Boston College/History of the American West (2013 Q1)). Is there something I can do to help? GabrielF (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can figure out who the professor is who is running this class, and contact them directly (especially if you have access to BC phone directories) and maybe figure out if he needs help, that would be most awesome. --Jayron32 04:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be the place to start: http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/english/faculty/full-adj-fac/George_O_Har.html as displayed on User:MauriceJackson24's userpage. Mkdw 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing battle over Derwick Associates

Background

The page in question is Derwick Associates. According to multiple reliable sources, it is effectively a money laundering organization for the Chavez government. I do not say that lightly. Please look at the sources in this version of the page for confirmation, and see this and this for a discussion of the reliability of the sources involved.

This page has been actively edited by sockpuppets who were eventually blocked.

The page has been nominated for deletion twice and failed both times. During the course of the second nomination, a number of additional sockpuppets appeared and were blocked.

Sources

After it became apparent that FinanceReferee was being operated by the lawyers of Derwick Associates (see the bottom of ), and after Philippe Beaudette contacted me on my talk page informing me via email that Derwick Associates is suing me, I decided to take a step back and bring the content to RfC. The result of the RfC was that the sources present in the page were legitimate, however, none of the users commenting appeared to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject of Venezuelan media.

I think it is worth mentioning at this point that many (if not most) dictatorship-backed companies like Derwick Associates will use the legal system to silence those who speak out against them—usually including journalists. In fact, the $300 million defamation lawsuit they filed was for exactly this purpose.

After questions were raised about the sources in the page, I posted a message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Unfortunately, I did not receive any responses. I assumed this was because most people on English Misplaced Pages either do not speak Spanish or do not know very much about the Venezuelan media.

To resolve this, I sent a message to every member of Wikiproject Venezuela with the hopes of shedding some light on this issue.

I received only a few responses, the most helpful of which was from SandyGeorgia, where she re-posted my RSN posting and responded to it here. She then removed all of the material on the page that was not in a reliable source.

A detailed explanation of the sources involved can be found here.

This page has been reviewed and edited by a number of highly-credible users, including:

• Collect, *SandyGeorgia,
• Rich Farmbrough

all of whom went through and fixed reliable sourcing issues.

The problem

Approximately one week after the sockpuppets mentioned earlier were blocked, a different user by the name of FergusM1970 came through and removed all of the same material that the sockpuppets were attempting to remove (and the following 20-or-so edits), effectively removing every piece of controversy.

I reverted these edits to the version that was agreed on from the RfC mentioned earlier. FergusM1970 then re-reverted me with the edit summary: "Alek, I spent a lot of time cleaning up this article and removing the attack sections. Please discuss before reverting again." Not only had this material been discussed on the talk page, but FergusM1970 is attempting to out me as "Alek Boyd", the blogger he referred to in a number of other edits.

His edits all refer to "dubious sources" or lack of "reliable sources", yet he has never once engaged in a discussion on the sources involved.

Questionable edits

Recently, and the reason why I am bringing this issue to AN/I, FergusM1970 removed all negative information added a great deal of hyper-positive information, including a number of foundations that Derwick Associates supports None of this information was sourced, and he even tagged it with "Citation needed". The only place this information exists (as far as I can tell) is on Derwick Associates website , which is obviously self-published and not to be used on the page. He also added the following text:

Neither Derwick nor Bariven have released any information regarding the contracts. The companies are bound by confidentiality agreements and Venezuelan laws that prohibit any of the companies from releasing information.

Again, he did not include a source. I asked him on his talk page where he found all of this information and he responded with a thoroughly unsatisfactory response about how I am "paranoid". His tone in his response was uncharacteristically civil, as you might notice by the numerous blocks, sockpuppet investigations, and warnings on his talk page for "incivility".

After going back and forth with FergusM1970 for nearly a month and a half, I have decided that my only option is to bring this issue to AN/I.Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your "going back and forth" has consisted of restoring your original (massively POV) version of the page twice then asking me what position I hold at Derwick Associates. It hasn't exactly been a deep discussion, has it? --FergusM1970 00:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me put a word in with a bit of advice for both of you. First of all, for FergusM1970... As both an administrator and as an editor, I've had many dealings with editors who hold conflicts of interest (either disclosed or undisclosed) and sockpuppets. I've been the target of a good number of angry sockpuppets over the years. I once wasted literally months in a mediation case where ultimately one of the people involved was a sockpuppet who was affiliated with, advocate for, and actually posting from the headquarters of the article subject we were trying to be in mediation for. One thing I've learned is that sometimes on Misplaced Pages, you're not paranoid enough. :(

For Justiciero1811... I have a lot of experience with sockpuppets and conflict of interest accounts (as I said before). Looking over FergusM1970's prior contributions and apparent topics of interest, I have a lot of trouble believing that they are affiliated with Derwick Associates, or a sockpuppet of someone else previously involved with the article. I find it far more likely that this is simply an editor who honestly disagrees with you. I suggest that as you continue to work on this article, and as you discuss matters with FergusM1970, that you approach your interactions from that perspective. -- Atama頭 05:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for the speedy response. I stumbled across the article in question by accident and was quite impressed at how evil the company was. When I started to dig a little, though, it turned out that more or less the entire article was based on editorials by a single journalist who, to put it mildly, seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Justiciero1811 seems quite determined to keep it in that form, but it really was outrageously POV. --FergusM1970 11:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Eldumpo violating several policies in regards to WP:NOBLANKING

Eldumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user initially caught my attention when i reverted his edit (he spuriously removed content) on the Landlocked countries article (at first i assumed good faith and justified my action appropriately in the edit summary). he then came back About a month later and once again deleted the exact same content - a different user again reverted his edit a few hours later. So i noticed this and decided to have a look at Special:Contributions/Eldumpo...and found him practicing much of the same behavior on the majority of his edits as well.

The most blatant example of this user`s WP:DISRUPTIVE/WP:VANDAL editing is the West Country derby article, where after several smaller removals he went ahead and in a -single- edit removed 16,261 byte`s worth of information. The article was 21,963 bytes before he started and by the time he was done, he had shrunk it down to 1,302 bytes...and while at it removing referenced content as well as 31 references.

This is not confined to just 1, 2 or 3 edits either. It's rather prolific. In a single swipe he also removed 7,215 bytes from the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 4,741 bytes from the Dárvin Chávez, 4,465 bytes from the Joe Harvey, 4,893 bytes from the Iran Pro League articles....and i could go on and on listing several more easily identifiable WP:DISRUPTIVE and borderline WP:VANDALISM edits from this user.

I'm just a passing ip but i seriously doubt this user's "contributions" to wikipedia are constructive.

i would go ahead and try to revert his damage but admins are probably better equipped than me to do that. so i thought that since i couldnt find a more appropriate place to put this i'd put it here to (hopefully) get the attention of an admin.

diffs (before and after his edits): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.94.226 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

1. You didn't sign your comment. For shame
2. You didn't notify the user of this discussion per the rules of the page and the big orange notice block. For shame
3. There hasn't been any recent discussion with the user about this.
4. You're an IP user and yet seem very familiar with the lingo and proceses for Misplaced Pages dispute resolution. So much so that I question if you're evading scrutiny by being logged out.
5. The diffs you present are over 2 months old. How is this an "Immediate action requested" instead of a longer term and lower level of dispute resolution?

There might be a coaching opportunity for this user to use inline maintanance templates as opposed to outright deletions (give intrested editors an opportunity to fix issues prior to deletion). At this point (in my mind) there's enough procedural flaws in your request that I think it would probably do with being dismissed for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I dispute the accusations of vandalism and disruption. Yes, I have at times deleted sections of unreferenced material, often when it is poorly written and/or debatable/POV, or when the section just may not be notable, but have added references and cites to a large number of articles. Eldumpo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:O9837tr7xs and Master–slave morality

Can I ask an admin to look at this? This user seems determined to stuff the article full of original research and dubious "Jewish master race" conspiracy theories, such that the article more closely resembles a neo-nazi tract than a serious encyclopedia article. Example additions: "This implies that there are two psychosomatically immature slave races—the unconscious Mongoloid "embryos"/"sheep" do tedious manufacturing work for the semiconscious Aryan "children"/"sheepdogs", who are mind-controlled by the fully conscious Jewish "adults"/"shepherds"" ....."The Aryan race commands the Mongoloids but obeys the Jews. This combination of commanding and obeying abilities is symbolized by the German sheepdog. The domestication finished in 1945 AD, when the last pack of Aryan "noble wolves" was tamed into sheepdogs."...."The Jewish master race is symbolized by a hook-nosed eagle and a wise serpent:" etc etc

The user received the full series of warnings on their talk page about violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV, they brushed off those warnings, declaring that "avoiding OR is a slavish trait" and continued to edit war to readd the material until they were blocked. They have now returned from that block to add exactly the same material on the article. I'm bringing this here as attempts at discussion with the user have proved futile. Valenciano (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected this article to put a stop to the edit warring. I have chosen not to block O9837tr7xs for edit warring because I do want to give them an opportunity to give us their side of this story (AGF and all that). However, if another admin feels that a block is necessary given the previous lack of a constructive response from this editor, so be it. --Kinu /_c 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, however, the user's response to this thread doesn't inspire confidence that this is an editor who will heed the advice of several editors to stop using the article as a WP:COATRACK. I expect I'll be offline most of the weekend so I would appreciate it if other editors could keep an eye on that situation. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And an edit summary that says "Avoiding OR is a slavish trait" not only doesn't inspire confidence but makes me wonder if this editor is likely to ever be a positive contributor here. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking the contribution history, I have my doubts on that as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I so look forward to some form of explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish that O9837tr7xs's reply in this thread wasn't removed. It didn't rise above the level of being "mildly uncivil" and it would help demonstrate their behavior. My personal belief is that the editor is doing this as a joke, this is so over-the-top I have trouble believing that they're sincere. I wouldn't expect any kind of legitimate explanation, or even an attempt at one. -- Atama頭 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Poe's law in action? Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson demanding negotiation

Talk page interaction ban

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

I would like to propose a 6 month interaction ban between myself and User:Adjwilley on article talk pages. Although our dialogues are not uncivil, there is currently a repetitive pattern where we repeat the same arguments over various talk pages on religion and its getting tiring. An interaction ban would be perfect. The first one was on Talk:God last year and the latest has been on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Can i get a few supports to end this time-wasting please? Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support To save everyones time as on Talk:Afterlife, Talk:David (disambiguation), etc.. Pass a Method talk 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What duration are you proposing? Also, if your dialogues are civil, I'm not seeing the reason for this - if you don't like them, then go and edit some different articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• comment 6 months. Also i prefer incivility over time-consuming talk-page discussions. Editing different articles is difficult since we have similar interests. Since i met him i spend half of my time on wikipedia speaking to him on article talk pages, which i would prefer to spend on AfD's or logs or something. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It is true that Pass a Method and I have had a fairly long disagreement, but in my opinion cutting off talk page communication is not going to help resolve it. If anything, better communication is needed, since we still seem to misunderstand one another. I would prefer time-consuming discussions to incivility, as long as the discussions stay focused on the problem at hand.

  Also, I don't really understand why this is coming now, since there is currently an RfC running at WT:WikiProject Religion that, if resolved, could solve our problem. (If anybody wants to comment, by the way, any and all views are welcome!) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• reply Almost all discussions boil down to "those religions are not as notable as Christianity" from my viewpoint. I have even seen such comments indirectly made against Islam and Sikhism. Thats not a discussion but a WP:CHRISTIANPOV. Pass a Method talk 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes Christianity is more notable, sometimes it's not. It depends on the topic of the article. In the Joseph (son of Jacob) article you referenced above, it's Judaism that's most notable. In the God article, Christianity and Islam should receive equal weight (but still not very much IMO, and less than is currently in the article). Trust me, I'm all for eliminating Christian POV from articles, but going around linkspamming articles with links to Raelism, Eckankar, and Druidism isn't the way to do it. Anyway, this isn't the venue for discussions like this, so I suggest that we close this thread and focus future discussion at the RfC mentioned above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What you said in the above comment and what i see on actualy alk pages are two different things. Pass a Method talk 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose A ban on positive discussion that can help lead to consensus? No. Not today; not tomorrow; not someday next week. Maybe topic-ban the both of you so that you can only use the talkpages across a wide swath of articles, and ban you from each other's talkpages, but no way is there any need to ban you from article talkpages as of this point as it will achieve nothing (literally and figuratively) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge tag removed by article creator

On 9 March User:Kauffner created a new article Han-Nom. On the same day User:BabelStone proposed a merge by tagging the article. A merge discussion is in progress. However, User:Kauffner has removed the tag, twice now, and despite my trying to engage him on his talk page. This all follows a move discussion on a related article, where I tried to start a discussion about how many articles were needed, which he did not engage in. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check his use page.... it just might violate Polemic as he's using it to call a wikipedia user "this thing" "wiki stalker " and "it". He has at least one link where he shows this individual's wikipedia account.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I nominated it for MfD, due to its clear attack nature. Hopefully that wasn't an entirely stupid/incorrect thing to do! Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kauffner is where it is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the personal attack paragraph from the page, that's just not on. No comment on the other matter. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards