Misplaced Pages

Administrative action needed

Counseling (suggested by Acroterion above) will not suffice here. This editor has been edit-warring on a range of articles and being disruptive in a variety of other ways. We currently have articles that are full of junk because I am not willing to engage in an edit war (thought identification, electromagnetic weapon). The absolute minimum that is needed is a stern warning that any further editing against consensus will lead to a block. I really feel that a block is already more than justified, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling my edits junk is OK? They are well sourced factual and relevant. Your actions, in deleting an entire page on a whim, despite talk conversations about merging them, is a bit more of a problem, I think. Damonthesis (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone experienced in mentoring editors who charge on here to support fringe theories? That's about the only alternative I can see. I'm inclined to believe that unless Damonthesis's behaviour improves by a truly dramatic degree within the next couple of days that an indef is the best way to end the disruption here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban on a range of articles broadly related to mind control, psychotronics, etc. is appropriate? That would end the disruption, give the editor a mandatory break from his crusade, and provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of relevant Misplaced Pages policies by perhaps working on noncontroversial articles on unrelated topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot call a viewpoint that is supported by military sources, news articles in Russia and the USA, as well as a textbook endorsed by the NSA a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is the established viewpoint, and this group has repeatedly attempted to suppress sources which refer to it as such, instead opting to utilize sources which are much older, and refer to an unscientific and un-investigated invention of one person, rather than the truth--that "psychotronics" refers to a long running Russian military development program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to try mentoring Damonthesis. I have some experience with Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, and my knowledge of electromagnetic theory might come in handy. I would suggest a one-week block to stop the disruptive behavior, and that during the block he and I have a talk on his talk page about what behavior is expected of him if he wishes to continue editing Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What we are looking at is the "collective opinion" of 3 editors and an admin that since they do not believe something is possible, any source that disproves that opinion must be WP:FRINGE. These are not fringe sources, we are talking about congressional legislation, military analysis, and intelligence textbooks. The program is very real, and very well documented; despite fringe coverage which definitely does exist. Regardless, the sources here are factual, accurate, and authoritative, and its irresponsible to be fighting their inclusion because of the contrary opinion of an editor. Historical accuracy should be paramount, point in fact, the Soviet Psychotronic_weapons program was created as a parallel program to MK ULTRA at nearly the same time.. the only difference being that the psychotronics program was never shut down, as is well supported by U.S. Military literature throughout the 90's 00's and with recent comments by the Russians themselves in 2011 and 2012. This is being presented as "my opinion" or "my agenda," when in fact I am presenting well sourced facts, and those accusing me of pushing a POV are delivering only their uninformed and un-sourced opinions in response. Damonthesis (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, because The Men Who Stare at Goats was a documentary ... ? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? You liken sourcing Military publications and analysis to a fiction movie? Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Damonthesis, you can be completely right about what the article content of a page and still be end up indefinitely blocked because of your user conduct. Likewise, you can be completely wrong about article content, but if your user conduct meets our behavioral standards you can be a productive editor. You need to choose; are you willing to follow the same rules as everyone else or do you prefer to have your editing privileges revoked? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow the rules, the edits I made should have at least been looked at, but were summarily dismissed. I attempted to go to another page to provide a better "look" at the differences, and was followed there, having my edits deleted by the same users. I filed a complaint about that, and was subsequently attacked repeatedly. To date, it appears nobody has taken the care to look at the merit of the edits, or the discussion that created this problem. Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked Damonthesis for one week (good number, Guy) for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Other editors were also edit warring, but I chose not to block them because the source of the disruption was Damonthesis. Nonetheless, those editors are advised to be more careful next time. Another admin may have reacted differently. If Guy wants to attempt to discuss mentorship with Damonthesis during the block, that would be much appreciated. I do not believe that the block is too long, but, obviously, the discussion here might result in greater sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on Damonthesis' user page, WP:OWB #72 seems to apply... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious canvassing pointed out here and by a new editor brought to the AfD, I'm guessing by the reddit thread. I don't know the related policy, but I'd suggest more than one week for Damonthesis. Ansh666 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also FYI, several sleeper accounts have been found and blocked . Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to follow up on Damonthesis' talk page and offer to mentor him. Feel free to follow along; it should be every bit as entertaining as Celebrity Apprentice... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have his talk on my watchlist for some reason...so I'll follow along. I'd offer to help out with anything, but as the one who filed the SPI and stuff I don't think he'd take it as help at all. Ansh666 03:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• He turned me down with a rant about how Fighting Evil Requires Violating Misplaced Pages's Rules. Sigh. (BTW, concerning that rather embarrassing revelation above, I just watch CA because Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller is on it. Really. Don't roll your eyes at me! (Smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, his final Talk page post contains obscure references to Bible quotes, the Boston Marathon Bombing, Psychotronics, and a diff by User:AndyTheGrump. I don't know what that all means, but it's not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In case there's any admins left looking at this, the AfD here is getting kind of out of hand; several new accounts have posted in response to a reddit post, probably by Damonthesis. Would anyone mind closing it to avoid all this unnecessary SPA traffic? Thanks. Ansh666 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Moving post below by Damonthesis from WP:AN, where it was misplaced. Admittedly there's perhaps not much point now that D is blocked, and I find it meritless in any case, but it doesn't feel right just deleting it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thought_identification&diff=553056368&oldid=553027521

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966766&oldid=552966437 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966437&oldid=552964397

All of these revisions did actually reflect "what the source actually says" prior to his edit, which spun them to be biased and to reflect his own opinion.

I am not sure if there is a larger pattern here, but these three instances are obvious cases of the edit description being deceptive. I imagine it is part of a larger pattern of biased editing; regardless the deceptive tagging is troubling to me.

Damonthesis (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible canvassing on Reddit to Votestack AfD?

Some new users showing up at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. One hinted that this AfD is being discussed on Reddit. A Reddit search turns up this forum discussion, alleging that "a number of Misplaced Pages editors are conspiring in order to suppress the inclusion of the Psychotronics program" and giving links and pointers to affected article Talk pages, and soliciting comments to the AfD. (The posts originate from a Reddit user calling themselves "needle in eye".) Uninvolved admins might want to take a look at these new accounts, possibly connected to Damonthesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, this AfD is getting rather out of hand. I'd appreciate if an admin took some action to prevent the discussion from being flooded by SPAs (they're ignoring the warning up top) Ansh666 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:johncheverly

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Misplaced Pages talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Misplaced Pages does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Misplaced Pages talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" , rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Misplaced Pages talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Misplaced Pages that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Misplaced Pages for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later . This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Misplaced Pages is not censored Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Misplaced Pages:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Misplaced Pages's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Misplaced Pages will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The attacks on a subject of a Misplaced Pages article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well. John was just here a few weeks ago for incivility and disruptive edits. Whereas he can be given leeway with respect to those issues as he intends to improve, we cannot countenance ongoing BLP violations. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He told me that he is done and wants his up and whatnot deleted. May as well indef block to enforce it. Go Phightins! 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in indeffing him if he has no intent to return, or even if he does return. We aren't even proposing a community ban, just editing restrictions, such as a topic ban, logged at WP:RESTRICT. If he really wants to leave the community there's nothing we can do to stop him though. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If he'd really still like to draft up "a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case" (preferably in his own sandbox first), I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see it, as would all the guys (and gels) down in the dark woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mendaliv, if you would rather simply topic ban him at BLP, that would be fine too, but he has a history of questionable conduct no matter where he is. He notified me via email in no uncertain terms that he is fed up with Misplaced Pages, so at this point, I agree, it doesn't so much matter what we do. He's adamant that he's done. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people might call that a result. If only all interventions were as productive? I'd have nothing against him if he calmed down a bit and followed policy - editors can hold "unusual views" about justice if they wish to. But, since he started as an editor, how many main space edits has he made that could be considered "useful"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass page moves: Greek transliteration

GreekAlex is mass-moving pages on Greek food to impose a specific transliteration of the Greek names: Special:Contributions/GreekAlex. He seems to have stopped for now, and I left him a note on his talk page, but since his very first edit was today and he started moving pages shortly after his tenth edits in what might well be a controversial way, this might bear watching. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He must be warned and if he does not stop he should be blocked without delay. Δρ.Κ.  20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all his page-moves and his terrible transliterations. If he persists he must be blocked. Δρ.Κ.  20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr. K accuses me of vandalism, I demand an apology. The Greek "ου" transliterates to one single vowel "u" in the Latin alphabet, not in to two vowels. Dr. K says terrible transliterations and says he's right, no you are not. If you don't know, now you know.

The pages should be moved back to the single correct vowel form which also helps non-Greek speakers of the correct pronunciation.

And also Dr. K's threats of being blocked should be seen as a direct threatening of an other Wiki-member.GreekAlex (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Alex, we have naming conventions that were determined by WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe that an article needs a different title, then please use requested move and a valid policy-based argument, then wait until consensus is formed - do not move titles yourself based on your personal belief. Providing you a warning (not a threat) is valid, and is therefore not an attack. Again, please do not make further moves of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BW. Here is some background: This user started edit-warring after two level 4 warnings concerning improper transliteration based on his original research. He calls longstanding, valid transliterations typos:

Typos fixed.

Changes Haloumi’s location from Turkey to Cyprus: In Cyprus, Halloumi

He is also reverting longstanding Turkish onomatology converting it to Greek onomatology at Yuvarlak: converting it to his Greek version "Yuvarlakia" despite “Yuvarlak” being a Turkish word. In talk:Loukoumades he says that the commonname is wrong and not scientific and that I should understand this:

Even in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Romanization_of_Greek it states the following. Loukoumades is not the right way to write it, it just reinforces the wrong transliteration and spelling and also pronounciation (people pronounce it always wrong with the form Loukoumades (because this is not a scientific article, the form Lukumades should be used instead of the wrong form Loukoumades).

On his talk he replies to my warnings: It in not vandalism to have the will to correct the transliteration errors made by for example you.. Overall a very tendentious and disruptive editor so far with edits indicating he is trying to suppress longstanding Turkish onomatology which is in addition to the rest of his problematic edits. Δρ.Κ.  13:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Psst ... the warning above SHOULD have been the end of this thread (other than an "ok" from Alex)  :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify. (This would be obvious to linguistics people, but for the rest of us, here goes.) A distinction might be good to mention here, between "transliteration" and "transcription".

• In Japanese, the hiragana を is often transliterated as "wo". It's almost always pronounced "o".
• In Mandarin Chinese, "一, 二, 三, 四, 五" ("1, 2, 3, 4, 5") is transliterated in pinyin as "yī, èr, sān, sì, wǔ". Only "sān" is close to how it would be transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet; neglecting the tones, "yī" is pronounced /i/, "èr" is pronounced /aɹ/, "sì" is pronounced /(erm, next question please?}/ and "wǔ" is pronounced /u/.
• Transliterations are often close to the pronunciation of the source language, but they are not phonetic transcriptions. "Loukoumades" is the conventional transliteration of "λουκουμάδες", but is not a phonetic transcription of "λουκουμάδες".

Yum, loukoumades--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PraetorianFury making personal attacks and being generally disruptive

Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The double-standard here is appalling. Where were your delicate sensibilities when I reported these same attacks and had admins complain about my report? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing to act in a way completely contrary to establishing consensus. I made some (many) assertions of notability listing some examples (unsourced). He asked for links. I asked him to clarify which ones he questioned or would find satisfactory. He responded saying "You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it". I am open to opinions and views other than my own, but he completely refuses to collaborate in any useful manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:168.190.80.40

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

Only 34 edits, resulting in 8 warnings: great score. Could someone take a look at the behaviour of this IP? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this should be resolved through consensus -- because we all know that the collective agreement of the few are right. That's exactly what they said about Iraqi. User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Lova Falk are ruining Misplaced Pages -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a week after repeated disruption on this page, among other things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Could be an idea to revoke this IP's talk page access as well; certainly he isn't using it very constructively. Sideways713 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Best to ignore that kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" . Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Misplaced Pages:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon  04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon  05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Misplaced Pages isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Misplaced Pages would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified." Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Misplaced Pages reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Misplaced Pages, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP: SNOW Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productiv editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Misplaced Pages editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, ; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88 opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Block of Blackcountrygirl

I'm concerned to note the recent block of Blackcountrygirl (talk · contribs), a good-faith editor, with no apparent prior discussion, and allegations of spamming. She last edited on April 8.

Disclosure: She's writing about the Black Country Museum, where I have previously run a Misplaced Pages "backstage pass" event. I don't know that I've ever met or corresponded with her, and have not been asked by them to intervene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of articles created by Blackcountrygirl which were deleted around the time she was blocked, they were all promotional in nature (and as far as I can tell, all concerning the Black Country Museum) but these were created back in April, around the time she last edited. I'm not convinced a block serves any useful purpose in this case given the user hasn't been editing at all for a month. There are other issues here, it looks like Blackcountrygirl has been uploading copyright material from the Black Country Museum too, so someone is going to have to spend time going over the various policies with her. A generic copyright violation template, a CSD tag and block notice are almost certainly going to leave this user confused and disheartened, indeed I wouldn't be too surprised if that's why they've not been back to edit in a month. Nick (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, if some other admin want to unblock her and take her by the hand, I'm not going to get all pouty about it; but it appears to me that she really, really doesn't understand the limits on promotion, WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. She basically created a whole article on every little display in the museum, sourced solely to her venue's own website and often copyright-violative. (Yes, some kind soul did give her links that could have been used to waive copyright.) There's a line between AGF and allowing shameless advocacy, and it seems to me that she crossed it long ago. Nick: "back in April" can mean "four days ago". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of blocking someone who hadn't edited in weeks for 31 hours for an offense committed weeks ago? That's not a preventative block, that's a nonsensically weak punitive block. If you were going to block, it should have been indefinite; and, you should not have blocked. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

She last edited on April 8 - hardly "four days ago". Please explain why you blocked someone who has not edited for almost a month; and why you did so with no warning, let alone an offer of advice. Your reference to "every little display in the museum" is a gross exaggeration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy - Seven articles - now deleted - on exhibits at the museum. I agree with Mike's assertion that a line has been crossed with regards to promotion and shameless advocacy. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seven articles - each of which will meet WP:N with a little more research - is not "every little display in the museum". She's not blocked for breaching WP:N, nor copyvio, but for spamming, With no warning or discussion of that. Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I put to Mike? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how e.g. Lench's Oliver Shop would ever meet WP:N, let alone "with a little more research". The only reliable source for this is the Museum, which is not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your false claim about a supposed "only reliable source" ignores journal and press articles, in print not online, about the relocation of the shop. How is this relevant to a block based on an undiscussed allegation of spamming, made a month after the event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a false claim at all: the article had only this to offer, "Black Country Museum (2012) Black Country Museum Guide, p21". Deletion was valid. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic was the potential for evidencing the article's notability in the future, not its state when deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lench's Oliver Shop opens up a rich seam of important topics which we have poorly covered. Industrial history is a neglected field and we should be supporting a museum which covers it, rather than persecuting them. The editor in question should be unblocked and an apology given. Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike, sorry, meant to say a month ago rather than last month. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked. I'm not really sure I see where the surprising or unusual aspect of this case comes in. That said, their whole problem relates to this one museum, so I would support an unblock with a firm agreement not to edit within that area again in the future. I think the risk of this account doing other, generalised spamming is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." You realize that blocking is preventative, not punative, right? Blocking for only 31 hours nearly a month after their last edit makes no sense whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." Where? Where were they warned for it? I see no reason or policy basis to topic ban a new editor for being enthusiastic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the museum or its contents - the articles may or may not have ended up acceptable over time, I dunno. But the user's talk page runs as follows: Copyvio notice, Copyvio notice, Link to Donating Materials, Copyvio notice, Block. Not once is the editor told that she may be blocked, nor is she told to discuss the matter. Now, if I post repeated copyvio, damn straight I expect to be blocked - but I'm not an editor who registered in March 2013 and has 81 undeleted edits. The block may be valid, but I think that one note saying "Stop posting this and discuss the matter" would have sufficed rather than a block. Of course, that note may not have had an effect since the editor stopped editing a month ago! What urgency was there in blocking her today? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps an experienced admin could advise OrangeMike on the appropriate use of his tools; and the potential harm caused by misusing them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The two factor test applies: 1) is the name promotional, or violating the username policy. In this case, without looking at the edits it's borderline. Test 2) is the promotional/COI edits, which in this case is apparent (whether or not the possible articles are "notable"). In this case, the articles are promotional/COI and provide a direct link to the inadmissibility of the username. As such, the block appears correct - no matter when the block has been made (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor had stopped editing on April 8th, what harm to the project was prevented by this block? Even if it was a correct block (a fact I do not stipulate), what purpose is served by blocking in this instance without issuing a final warning, as is standard? Put another way, if this was sent to AIV I would have likely warned the editor - but would also have declined the report as stale. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you said, if there was any block, an indefinite block would apply - but a 31 hour block? That makes no sense at all. What do you mean "no matter when the block has been made"? How does a 31 hour block a month after they last edited prevent any further damage? --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter tosh. The Black Country is a geographical region of the United Kingdom; the username is no different to "NewYorkGuy" or "BerlinBabe". The alleged "promotional/COI" nature of the articles has not been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. It has been demonstrated by the mentions of their speedily-deleted articles, and you know as well as anyone else does that, in this case, it very much appears that the Black Country part of their name references the museum as much as it does the area. The reason it's a borderline username issue is that it IS ambiguous, even with the apparent COI nature of this account. That said, I do agree that the block is rather too late and rather odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed content of George Maharis's arrest

The consensus agreed to have the arrest added. However, one user, Delicious Carbuncle, removes it, citing a policy as a reason to overcome consensus. Shall the "arrest" info be re-added or left out? --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the situation: Maharis was arrested in 1974 in a public washroom in Los Angeles. He plead "no contest" to a charge of trespassing. Detailing such a minor charge is completely out of proportion in the biography of a living person which does not even have a "personal life" section. We would not include a minor traffic violation in an actor's biography and this is no different. I believe that some editors may be motivated by a desire to use this incident to imply that Maharis is gay. I have removed the inclusion as a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), this seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to include this at all, 100 years from now this will not be regarded as significant to this man's career. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to disagree with DC's logic here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of dirt, WP:BLP applies even if the matter is reliably source because this is so trivial. Its 'gay-connection' thing is a huge concern is creating suggestions of a particularly damaging nature. ANI does not handle content disputes, but it seems another RFC is open on it. This isn't a behavior matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

George is most kind to alert us that the locally established consensus on Talk:George Maharis is problematic. We should all find time to head over to that page in order to ensure that the consensus there pays more attention to WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I didn't want to be called out for my earlier point of content versus behavior focus. That's all, if I didn't mention such a thing I would surely hear about it later in my own content dispute. Though that is another topic entirely. I'll comment there about my stance, ANI really isn't the preferred spot to make high level decisions on content like this, so comments should go into the rfc. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

George Ho started this discussion because of my actions, not to discuss the underlying content dispute, and they were correct to do so. But it doesn't hurt to remind editors that consensus or RfCs on an article talk page cannot override policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with DC and the comments supporting him, with the caveat that if the article that DGG cites on the talk page came from a genuinely reliable source, rather than a non-notable family-friendly gossip columnist/celebrity journalism repackager, there might be a reasonable contrary argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally an edit like this must be scrutinized, criminal activity on a biography of living person should not be added unless it is significant to either their career or produced a significant amount of literature. When in question, I completely agree with DC's actions, the questionable material should be removed until a consensus that is in line with policy can be established. I think George did the right thing by looking for another venue of inquiry (although I would have gone elsewhere before the ANI), and I think he has his answer that a community of experienced editors questions the inclusion of this material. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also struggling to see where the consensus for this edit actually came from. I see a couple of people voting for it, and a couple voicing concerns, not anything like a cast-iron consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations by two SPAs at Steven G. Kaplan

• Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
2. Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Misplaced Pages, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
3. The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
4. Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).

Selected diffs and evidence

• VINTON2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report":

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

Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries:

Note: I was referred here from WP:BLPN at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_G._Kaplan.

And one of the accounts above did it again, just now.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The page has been protected and the users warned, I'll keep an eye on the page and the editors. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think more than a first-level warning is necessitated here, like either a block, or a final-warning. These are significant blatant BLP violations that have been going on for months with one account and years with another. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits and comments in the talk page by both accounts, it seems like they're using Misplaced Pages to further some sort of vendetta or off-site dispute. §FreeRangeFrog 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do about AfD created by Paul Bedson sock?

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

I've just blocked QaraounCultureBuiltEden (talk · contribs) as a blatant sock of Paul Bedson (talk · contribs). He's created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Christianity (2nd nomination) for an article whose AfD just closed 2 days ago as Keep. Not sure what to do, I'd like to delete it, not just close it - I'm pretty sure the participants won't mind but I'll mention this there. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say delete, as one would do with any other page created by a blocked user in violation of their block (WP:CSD#G5). GiantSnowman 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, that seems sensible. This time he has reverted a lot of edits made by an earlier sock that I'd ignored, so I'm not reverting his edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I differ. A while back I tagged a Mangoeater AFD per G5, and the consenus at WT:CSD at the time was that if there'd been any !votes by other users, then the AFD should be either: 1) allowed to continue with a note reflecting the nominator's block (if there were any delete !votes) or 2) speedily kept (if there were none). (IIRC, in that particular case, no one had voted yet, and the AFD was deleted.) Someone should draw up a flowchart or something. But yeah, I'd say a speedy keep is in order. — PinkAmpers& 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, WP:MFD then? GiantSnowman 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• No need for an MFD, just speedy keep, per P&. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, what? A sock of a banned user is nominating for deletion articles another sock of the same user created? I still say just speedy keep, but now I also say "?" --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it's just trolling. Don't do an MFD, that would be feeding it. Just speedy keep, since people have commented, and speedy delete any subsequent AFD's by new socks as soon as they show up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've CSDed it under G5 and removed the template on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why is it that, one way or another, I always wind up on the same side as the sockpuppets? Someday I wanna run for CU just so I can see how many times checks have had to be run on me. — PinkAmpers& 20:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, wouldn't that be an abuse of your assumed position. Sockpuppets aside, I love how obvious most of them are, but is it just me or is there good hand and bad hand socks lately, and sleeper ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2013‎

• Struck through the comment of another Bedson sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And hatted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DUCK block requested

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

We have a Quacker Vietnamese Liberal Party (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If the community actually cared about the excessive sockpuppetry on this article in general (let alone sockpuppetry altogether), then Dinh Bo Linh should be full-protected for a very long time. --MuZemike 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Troller8000

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

Troller8000 ( talk | contribs |Block )

Has an unacceptable username that could encourage Trolling. please siteban the account for the username. Trolling has hurt this wiki many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.238.157 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:UAA is the place for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

IP User 50.37.147.15

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

IP User 50.37.147.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) has been warned repeatedly to stop removing {{Marriage}} templates from articles without consensus. After proposing it for discussion/deletion (WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 3 § Template:Marriage), they went silent. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the template is being actively worked on to resolve the issues that people have brought up.

I previously requested some attention to the issue, and the user's possibly being a sock, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793 § IP 50.37.147.15 disruption. The discussion was derailed into the details of the template dispute, and then died.

On May 2, the user made this edit to remove the {{Marriage}} template, again without comment or consensus. I've reverted the edit and request they be blocked from further such action, and checked to see if there is evidence of being a sock. —— 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll note there is another IP with very similar behavior, including identical edit summaries - 69.166.47.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). This IP has also edited the talk page of the blocked IP, suggesting a link. Manning (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Inspire (magazine)

Inspire (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors have repeatedly inserted links to archive copies of the magazine's articles. This is abnormal. At most there would be one link to a magazine's official website. In this case, because the magazine promotes criminal activities, it is dubious whether Misplaced Pages should be linking to any copy of the magazine at all. We should not allow our high visibility site to be abused for promoting outside causes, especially causes that violate the laws in the country where Misplaced Pages is published (and in other countries where Misplaced Pages may be accessed).

I doubt that we have well formed policy about this case. Common sense would be not to link to this magazine at all, and that the article should rely exclusively on secondary sources. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and if appropriate place the article under permanent semi-protection to prevent the article from being abused as a means of spreading propaganda and inciting criminal activities. Thank you. Jehochman 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding legality/morality of the activity the magazine promotes, copies archived on websites would be copyright violations, right? I would think we should keep them out for that reason at a bare minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected based on my understanding of the copyright issue, per WP:LINKVIO. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Copyvio is the easiest way to stop the publication. Though if it has a real website... chances are if pushed Misplaced Pages would have to include the link. This stops the problem for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27] (again)

Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) under the IP of 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Guatemalan IP that's under a six month IP range block for adding dates despite repeated warnings. This IP was blocked from another IP range 190.106.222.0/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was blocked for three days but has continued again to add dates. At this point, do I continue reporting here or at SPI? EDIT: And this IP too: 190.106.222.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) EDIT2: Add this 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

190.106.222.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing reverting my edits despite go against the MOS regarding linking dates. I need help! Erick (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This person changes their IP easily. I am reverting 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs) and Template:190.106.222.77 at the same time. Or s/he is in a computer centre or there are more than a person within this. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked 190.106.222.0/25 for two weeks (talk · contribs) (up to 128 users would be blocked). I have to go to the gym now so someone else will have to widen the range while I am away if the activity does not stop. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Erick (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to eliminate restrictions

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

Alright so it's been 18 months since User:Bwilkins gave me restrictions because I uploaded several non-free images that I tried to take full ownership of. I believe I can continue on Misplaced Pages without these restrictions and not get into any more trouble. Since September 2011, I have not been called upon at WP:AN/I and have been taking some wiki breaks as a result of my overall good behavior on Misplaced Pages. I understand what I did was wrong and promised not to ever do it again. I have a full understanding of Misplaced Pages's non-free content requirements and rules and need the ability to upload these as I begin to take articles I've expanded substantially to FAC which requires the use of non-free content to illustrate the article and to inform the reader. I've been asking several users on Misplaced Pages that I've been in good terms with to help me with artwork and/or music file uploading when the article I've expanded needs one. I believe I have demonstrated since 2011 that I won't be a menace on Misplaced Pages, and believe I can be counted on to take full responsibility of my actions and not act immature towards editors. Hope you guys can see the good in me and grant me back my full user rights . Best, Jona 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?

From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jona 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.

The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)

ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.

Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.

Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions are on top of users' talk page User_talk:AJona1992. For me, all the relevant information is: a. date of restrictions and b. no blocks for violation in the intervening interval.NE Ent 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support My criteria is similar to Ent's although I consider more than just blocks. Lifting the restriction seems a worthwhile "risk" after this long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• waiting for a comment from Bwilkins. (leaning support) — Ched :  ?  16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Misplaced Pages's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jona 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jona 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jona 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MRG and discussion above. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Its time to get the editor back to work. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment so has the community come to an agreement? Am I granted back my privileges to upload media or remain with that restriction? Also there were concerns about the letter on my talk page needing to remain, is that still in affect or is it okay to remove? Best, jona 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was reading through Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and don't see anything that prohibits your removal of the notice, and I believe that WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING would support that as well. However, there may be some items in some sort of WP:AE type of guidelines somewhere that I'm not familiar with, so I'm hesitant to say outright "yes you can remove the notice" (yes, I realize this was a community based situation rather than Arb based, I'm just using that as an example), but my belief is that you can remove it. As far as thread closure, it wouldn't be proper for those of us who have supported or opposed this to close the thread; so we must wait for a passing admin. who's not attached for that. I think the thread has been open long enough to be resolved - so now it's just a matter of WP:PleaseBePatient. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - What are the odds that this editor really secretly wants to misbehave and has decided that posting the one thing that is most likely to guarantee future scrutiny is a good way to accomplish that goal? Lift the restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support --MuZemike 02:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I've encountered Jona in the past, and he's a good guy with the best of intentions but has perhaps just been a bit too enthusiastic on occasion. I'm happy to trust him on the assurances he has given. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: He stayed on, stayed clean, wants to contribute. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support is for removal of restriction no 2, about restriction no 1, I'm not sure why it was in place as isn't using more than one account surreptitiously not allowed for anyone? Regarding restriction no 3, NPA and CIVIL are general guidelines that ought to be followed by everyone and not just this editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So support is for taking the notice off from the talk page too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: inclusion of Male privilege in Men's rights movement article probation status

• _{Please review the section on WP:NPOVN, as the discussion spills over into there, currently Rgambord (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}

full disclosure: I currently have a request in at WP:NPOVN regarding issues of content and WP:UNDUE at Male privilege.

Because two editors who have been involved in ongoing disputes at Men's rights movement, Kyohyi and Rgambord (the latter of which appears to have left) have over the last month or so become involved in editing Male privilege, I would like to propose that this article be considered part of these sanctions; I feel it relates substantially to "Men's rights (broadly construed)" but I want to get other input.

Maybe this doesn't need a formal proposal and is just discretionary, in which case feel free to let me know that's the case. -- # _ 04:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

for reference, here is the article probation information which I found in the list of general sanctions -- # _ 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post this to the neutrality board, but it's more appropriate here, since UTCL has brought the matter to ANI. I apologize for the extremely long comment, but I have a lot to say.

Let's clear up some misconceptions here. First off, I am not currently topic banned from any article as far as I am aware. There was a misunderstanding on Men's Rights Movement where I tried to clean up the talk page by merging multiple related section together; something went wrong, and the original sections I merged were not deleted, making duplicate sections. I noticed a few hours later and deleted the old sections, unknowingly deleting a new comment in the old sections. After that, I removed another user's comment on the same talk page (inserting text saying I had removed it for violation of WP:BDP), which violated WP:BDP (Calling a suicide victim a domestic terrorist as an insult). The person who's comment I had inadvertently deleted thought I was vandalizing the page, and asked why I deleted their comment; I assumed they were referring to the terrorist statement, and responded that I had removed it for WP:BPD violation. A series of miscommunications and misunderstandings later, and User:TParis hastily topic banned me without taking the time to try to get to the bottom of what had actually happened. Yes, I was rude and I apologize for that; I thought I was responding to someone who was indignant on being chastised for labeling an ideological opponent a terrorist. Now, if we can continue with the rest of this nonsense?

I am taking a break from wikipedia, especially the humanities (shudder), but I received an email notification, so that's why I'm here. UseTheCommandLine and I already argued over this page, and it already went to AN/I, and there seemed to be consensus that she was acting out of line and POV pushing. She got upset and decided to take a break, leaving this note on her talk page "I am tired of dealing with sexists and racists. I am taking an extended wikibreak. Perhaps it will be permanent.". I found it quite offensive, as it was clearly pointed at me. Here's the deal. I have been an editor on wikipedia for a very long time; this is a fairly new account. I have contributed quite a lot both logged in and as IP to various articles, mostly in history and science. Only within the last couple of months did I become aware of the extremely biased Feminism etc... pages on wikipedia, and I brought the same perspective I bring to all articles I edit in removing content that violates various clear wikipedia policies, as well as occasionally removing content that just plain old makes wikipedia into an unreliable encyclopedia (Per WP:IAR). I am by no means a perfect editor. I have always edited in good faith, and assumption that has not been granted to me by many editors on the feminism related pages, mostly because I am not a feminist, and don't adhere to or blindly accept any feminist beliefs without evidence. Neither am I an "MRA", racist, or sexist, as has been accused. I am simply one person who wants to see BETTER ARTICLES on wikipedia about this subject. I originally found out these articles because I was curious about their subjects, and then disgusted at the quality of information they provided.

One feminist belief is the existence of Male Privilege. There are quite a few very intelligent, (dare I say experts? Why not -- their credentials are no better or worse than mainstream feminist scholars), who argue for the exact opposite. UTCL pushed to deny those sources be included, and to remove evidence of the disagreement before, and she is doing it again. I have argued before, and I will argue now, that we should either have a legitimate (non-stub) male privilege and female privilege (currently a redirect to male privilege -- almost a slap in the face, really), or one article entitled Gender privilege. Both are notable and completely contradictory points of view, and no editor is qualified to determine which one is correct or which one deserves to be the main title of the page. Imagine the outrage if I changed the name of the article to Female Privilege, and just swapped the main article content and the criticism sections, changing a bit of the wording? I'd probably be banned for vandalism and POV pushing; but that sort of editing is perfectly accepted here if it's the other way around. There are other, similarly US and Feminism centric articles on wikipedia, such as White Privilege, and Christian Privilege-- which hardly applies in places like: China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Religious privilege, in general? --Yes, that exists, I agree, and that's the scope an encyclopedic article should cover. Gender is no different. There are numerous examples of female privilege in our society, and they are backed by WP:RS.

Finally, I posted in the Male privilege talk page my intentions for the article, before being distracted by school work, and the mess over at Men's Rights Movement. UTCL is aware of my intentions yet has avoided any attempts at consensus building, instead seeming to want to "protect" the previous state of the article before my arrival (which was absolutely abysmal and contained numerous unsourced paragraphs, as well as clear violations of WP:Synth/WP:OR). I don't believe that the article needs protection, something that should not just be doled out willy-nilly (This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit). I merely think that UTCL needs to have some mentoring, as mentioned in the previous AN/I topic, as well as possibly having her edits to Male Privilege placed under moderation or whatever it is they do here. Maybe then we can build consensus, like I tried to the first time around, instead of having constant edit wars. Rgambord (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, this sort of line "Well, it does help make it quite obvious that misogynists have overrun the page... that's how I ended up in here. Publicarch (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)" on Talk:Male privilege shows the sort of pre-polarized attitude editors are bringing into the page. It is exceedingly clear that User:Publicarch is calling me and User:Kyohyi misogynists. UTCL's behavior has been roughly the same. It's absolutely unacceptable and unprofessional conduct and has no place on wikipedia. Rgambord (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

my reasoning for the separate ANI and NPOVN cases was that the NPOVN query was about the content issues while this notification was about its relation to Men's rights and Men's rights movement. If there's a willingness to get everything sorted at once, fine, but I was trying to separate out the content from the behavior. -- # _ 06:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The behavior at issue is your history of repeated edit warring and revert warring . Thank you for bringing it to the attention of ANI. Rgambord (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation RGambord

• Note: Rgambord (talk · contribs) is currently topic banned from editing the article men's rights movement. Male privilege is certainly a related article as many men's rights activists argue that women are privileged (see section "female privielge" in the men's rights movement article) and men are not privileged relative to women (see lead section and "relation to feminism" section in the mrm article). Perhaps an uninvolved admin can take decide if Rgambord violated his topic ban. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not topic banned. I can only guess that TParis looked into the matter and saw that I made a good-faith mistake. I see you have an axe to grind, after I've repeatedly apologized for an honest mistake. I have no kind words for you considering you denied my repeated attempts to resolve the issue during and after. You're quite unconstructive, yourself. Rgambord (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rgambord (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "article ban" not "topic ban". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

With this edit Rgambord has violated his article ban . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You claimed there was a topic ban. That was false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Topic banned from editing the article men's rights movement" is what was actually said. It is absolutely clear what was meant and splitting hairs over the phrasing is ridiculous. Rgambord, don't make any more edits to the article. AniMate 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To use the exact words of the blocking admin in the log of sanctions: "Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page for 1 month until May 23, 2013." . Either way, Rgambord did violate his ban with today's edit in the mrm article. If we assume that it was a topic ban – and the blocking admin said that it was and if you look at the log of sanctions you'll see that the patrolling admins have issued topic bans rather than article bans – then I believe that there is reason to believe that Rgambord violated his ban by editing the male privilege article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Admin told him he has to stay away from one article and then made a log entry entire topic without telling him about it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a topic ban violation doesn't get more ovbious that this . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is notable, I think, that Rgambord him or herself describes their ban as "topic" rather than article in the initial (not meant to be derogatory) wall of text response, above (here). -- # _ 09:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that until now, he didn't even know what "ban" means, so I'd just not pick on words anymore. He self-reverted just now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. stricken. -- # _ 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• We're not seriously contemplating blocking an editor for an innocuous formatting improvement, are we? Reyk _YO! 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, but this one nails it. Didn't see that until now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I don't understand what's going on here. Firstly, don't start saying I violated a topic ban for removing an extraneous space to show a point. That's ridiculously bureaucratic and unhelpful. If you're seriously going to start arguing about whether I violated my ban (which apparently isn't present) because of that, I'm just going to go ahead and actually leave wikipedia for good, because this nonsense is getting pretty damn ridiculous. Second, how do I formally appeal the ban, which was made in error? Especially considering TParis claimed two different time periods for the ban, and then never actually banned me? Considering that sonicyouth86 misrepresented my actions and TParis likely did not look much into the situation before "banning" me, considering it took him only a couple of minutes to make a quick decision. Rgambord (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How do you explain this then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. We are considering blocking him for violating his topic ban with a big side of WP:Point thrown in for good measure. AniMate 09:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What topic ban? I can still edit the article, so where is the ban? Explain, please. Seriously, this is getting old. And now I am not allowed to defend myself? Rgambord (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Article ban". And there's no doubt you were informed about that. And you violated it on the talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can still edit the page, so how am I banned? And WP:POINT doesn't even apply to my edit, so idk what animate is talking about. So what you're telling me is that I'm going to get blocked because I assumed that TParis removed whatever ban he threatened on me and then attempted to defend myself against lies? Just don't even bother. Don't even. This is disgraceful. What a waste of time. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A ban is not a technical measure. You can, but you're not allowed. And you were told you're not allowed. But you did anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's sloowwwwwwwww down a bit, ok? I'll undo both edits. No harm, no foul, turn off the sirens, put down the guns. Now that that is settled, the actual reasoning behind the ban "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive." just... isn't true. That's the problem. I wasn't in a dispute with these people. I didn't delete entire sections of an ongoing discussion. I clusterfucked a section move, and even put in the edit summary that I hoped I was doing it right. Clearly I did it wrong, and got shat on for it. So, I guess if I can't appeal that ban and if you're all intent on stringing me up for it, so be it. I can edit something else. It still seems ridiculous to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The patrolling admin TParis told you clearly and unambiguously that you are banned from editing the mrm article and the article talk page. Another user advised you to revert your edit in the mrm article . Despite all this you went ahead and edited the mrm talk page on top of the mrm article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you have tremendous experience with topic bans, but I had no idea that's how it worked. Thankfully the admins are reasonable towards newbies here. You sure have taught me a lot in the last couple of weeks Sonicyouth86!!! Forever in your debt xoxoxoxRgambord (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most editors are reasonable towards newbies but you are not a newbie by your own admission . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be rude, but with all this hubbub about topic bans etc, I'm still left wondering if there is consensus that Male privilege qualifies as part of the Men's rights movement article probation. I feel like it's important that once this topic/article/etc stuff is sorted out, that we return to that subject. -- # _ 09:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What a night. My dog says hi. Rgambord (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to appeal the topic/article ban, I think the appropriate venue is WP:Arbitration enforcement. We don't do a good job at all of making that clear. AniMate 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, there technically was a violation of the topic ban, but Rgambord didn't understand the restriction, so there won't be any block. UTCL, this has been open for such a short time. Consensus for or against hasn't even begun to form. You're stretching yourself awfully thin here. I'd concentrate on one thing at a time rather than opening an arbitration case while simultaneously trying to expand discretionary sanctions. You're really, really not doing yourself any favors. AniMate 10:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never once had to use any of these arbitration thingys in all the years I've been an editor here, nor have I ever had any warnings of any sort, let alone bans. I hope I never have to make my way to this page again. Holy monkeyballs this has been a really unnecessary nightmare!!!Rgambord (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rgambord writes that he has been an editor for many years. It is a stretch to argue that he does not understand the TParis' words ""Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page" and "you are banned from participation on Men's rights movement and it's associated talk page". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time that Rgambord has described himself as an experienced editor ("I have been an editor on Misplaced Pages for a long time"). He also appeared to know the meaning of "ban" when he argued that my comments (he confused me with User:South19) on the mrm talk page would have gotten me banned . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For now I think the best thing to do is assume good faith, and believe that he thought an article ban was technically enforceable. If he violates it again, a block will be in order. AniMate 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not split hairs: an "article ban" and a "topic ban on an article" are identical in meaning, so it's obvious that Rgambord would understand that they meant the same. He has also been around long enough (and is able to follow wikilinks) to understand that bans are not technical implementations - it was part if his original warnings. I might be able to overlook a simple removal of a space (if I have my AGF tinfoil hat on) but nothing more significant. He has violated the article ban. Two options: 1) slap him on the wrist and extend the topic ban for a full month (and close his ridiculous AE request to have the topic ban removed), or 2) block him for a week AND extend the topic ban to indefinite. I !vote for 1. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• TP's comments I dont have a lot of time today to discuss this and I am sorry for that. Seb is correct, I made a discrepency. The intention at the time was an article ban for six months. The log is in error and I am very sorry that my oversight has caused this confusion. I have to go now, but I hope I've cleared some of this up. If my error is so huge that I should recuse from patrolling the topic area anymore, let me know. Also, because of the confusion, if ANI should see reason to come to it's own decision over the terms of Rgambord's sanctions, then I'd ask that up until this point that he be treated as if he were under an article ban. I appreciate those who have given this subject attention and I also apologize for the time wasted.--v/r - TP 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by user:Afg96

Afg96 has been disruptive in editing Mehmet Oz by ignoring the talk page discussion about whether the article should say that Oz is a Muslim. Instead, Afg96 has repeatedly undone the article changes called for in the talk page decision, despite four warnings that this behavior was inappropriate.

Here are some of the edits by Afg96 going against the talk page decision, and the corresponding warnings I placed on Afg96’s talk page:

• Warning:

• Warning:

• Warning:

• Warning:

Here is the latest edit by Afg96, which was made after the fourth warning:

Afg96 has never participated in the discussion on the article’s talk page, but did leave this message on my talk page:

Here is my response to Afg96’s message along with the response of another editor (the only one to respond to Afg96’s message):

I appreciate any help you can provide with this conflict. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

My previous ANI was about his behaviour, when he reverted my version of the Dravidian languages article without solid reasoning: Link to Archive795
After a couple of days of discussion at the talkpage, I come to the conclusion, that he has no interest in seeking any form of consensus, which doesn't equate his own opinion. In the discussion, he uses only false information to "argument" his case, whatever this may be. He also reverted to his own version again, after I implemented, what most people thought, a consensus version. This misunderstanding happened because he chose to completely abstain from the main discussion! And only after another reverter Taivo helped to sustain the edit war, and I started a RFC, he chose to come to limelight again, only to spread false information again, in a most destructive manner possible to mislead the general public! Please read the talkpage there. Users have called it a farce already. I hereby request an appropriate action against Kwamikagami, which prevents him to do such activities again. Thanks!-- Dravidian  Hero  05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Dravidianhero read WP:NPA. I clearly stated my reasons for reverting this unprofessional and uninformative map in the infobox. You, Dravidianhero, fail to understand Misplaced Pages procedures as expounded in WP:BRD. You made a bold change, but when you were reverted, rather than discussing reasonably and trying to build a consensus, you simply tried to force your will upon the article by edit warring. When your proposed change fails to achieve a consensus, then you must abandon it. Your map is inferior to the map that has been in the article for a long time. That has been plainly stated to you. Indeed, you have initiated an RfC at the article, so rather than letting the RfC play itself out, you have now initiated an ANI. That smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me, another violation of Misplaced Pages policy. --Taivo (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What others could do easily, you couldn't. Frame legit reasons for reverts. That's why I needed assistance by filing an RfC. To better understand your problem. Anyone, who reads the talkpage discussion will discover that I took everyone into confidence with ease. You consequently denied any serious discussion until RfC was opened. Suddenly you guys actually talk, wasted hours over hours of my and yours time in the process.-- Dravidian  Hero  07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI sometimes goes off on wacky tangents, so I figure I'd better ask: Is there anything for me to respond to here? — kwami (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Our Navajo friend is right. --Taivo (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the subject as it vaguely contained a personal attack, which was not intended.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Taivo is colorblind" is not "vaguely a personal attack". --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be fair. I said "Maybe" and you guys provocated me to use strong words. I deleted those.-- Dravidian  Hero  18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Close this please..-- Dravidian  Hero  21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Abhaya Indrayan

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

Abhaya Indrayan is a page created and maintained by what look like new SPAs. There could also be a possible COI. I don't say the page is a problem. Just reporting suspicious activity. May be a false call. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He is notable by WP:PROF, but I've removed some puffery DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Stalking by IP hopper

I have dealing with an IP edit warrior from two ranges, 12.154.167.xxx and 12.46.106.xxx, on the BK Chicken Fries article. The contrib has been constantly adding trivia to the article which was reverted by myself and two other editors. Despite the removal and a couple of page protection on the article, he keeps reposting. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page and explain why this is inappropriate for inclusion, but the IP poster is sockpuppetting via various IP addresses from AT&T wireless and Charter (all assigned in central Massachusetts and Northern Rhode Island) to make it look as multiple editors are chiming in - a clear violation of policy. Obviously, no valid conversation can be had. The contrib has shown that he has no intention of good faith, truly discussing the issue, adhering to our standards of neutrality, or following any other policy of Misplaced Pages. Further he is lobbing personal attacks at me instead of discussing the issue.

Now he seems to have decided it is a good thing to wikihound/stalk me (example, minor). He has gone to several articles and reverted changes I have made to those articles using 12.46.106.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for vandalism). Additionally, he posted a rather rude commentary about my dyslexia making me ineligible to contribute to WP on the Talk:BK Chicken Fries page. This individual has me rather upset due to his constant personal attacks and tendentious editing patterns. The issue here is IP hopping, I believe that he is going to just jump around to continue his trolling.

Could some one put a temp range block on those two sets of IPs to discourage him?

I have not put a note about this posting on all 508 possible addresses of the two ranges, as that would be too time consuming. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• All those are obviously the same person, and I've blocked all three (extending the original) to two weeks. If he comes back with more IPs, then WP:RFPP for semi-protection is one option, along with longer blocks for the IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced changes by IPs in Chola Dynasty

Various IPs have been making repeated changes in the article Chola Dynasty regarding how big the empire was. They keep on adding all of the present-day Southeast Asian states, (see article history: ) which isn't supported by mainstream scholarship. I've tried to discuss the issue: Talk:Chola_dynasty and no one seems to object to my points. The page supposedly has 137 watchers as of today but I'm not sure how many of them are active users. No one else seems to be taking any action to check on these outlandish claims repeatedly being added in this former featured article, and these changes by IPs go unchallenged for days. Please look into it. Hybernator (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:LarryTr7

LarryTr7 (talk · contribs) is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. They've been previously blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry, and their raison d'etre is to spew bile and violate WP:BLP in a crusade against Ping Fu. I thought they'd lapsed into inactivity, but they've come back again, with and . Given their history, and the fact they've never contributed anywhere else, I'm asking for an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• His previous statements on that talk page before being blocked for socking are more worrisome than these, which he attempts to use sources for. Unreliable sources, but sources. There does seem to be an inner POV warrior attitude at play here. His previous comments there to Yworo border on at attempt at outing, if they don't outright violate it, and are at the very least personal attacks. Had he not already been blocked for socking back then, he might have been blocked or at least strongly warned for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• After reviewing the case more, including the activity of his socks, it seems apparent that he is here for a single purpose, and that single purpose isn't the topic of Ping Fu, but rather to insure his particular perspective of Ping Fu is represented in the article (WP:NPOV). In other words, I think Luke is right here. I'm inclined to indef the editor as there isn't any specific time limit that will prevent the disruption, but would prefer input from others first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Those diffs were simply today's two edits, I wasn't portraying them to be the worst this user has posted. I thought about providing more diffs, but the contributions of this user are small enough and focused enough on disparaging Ping Fu, that I didn't feel the need to. And that's not listing anything this user has made in deleted articles, or with their socks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has made four edits in last two months; none are particularly disruptive. Yes there's some oblique reference to off wiki Amazon stuff, but multiple editors have done so. Talk:Ping Fu is a cesspit of Ad hominem attacks, so picking LT77's out of the heap isn't compelling to me. WP:NOTHERE isn't a blockable offense but rather a shorthand for actual policy violations (e.g. disruptive editing), and "Focusing on niche topic areas" is in the WP:NOTNOTHERE rather than "not here", anyway. Sockpuppetry is historic; editor was already sanctioned for it so bringing it up ANI again is escalatory. I encourage OP to stay focused on content discussion and don't think there's anything actionable. NE Ent 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is certainly a factor when determining a block duration or necessity. The underlying problem in different cases might be spam, or disruptive edits, or POV warrioring, but when someone is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and doesn't mind disrupting the entire encyclopedia to push their agenda, it does form part of the rationale to block them. This kind of disruption goes beyond the boundaries of a single article, affects retention, and wastes time. The sockpuppetry was just a vehicle to continue doing what is the primary problem, pushing a POV agenda, so it absolutely part of a pattern. I'm not inclined to not block someone simply because other POV warriors exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent, I presume you haven't realized that a vast majority of the SPAs at the Ping Fu article turned out to be related to LarryTr7 - and confirmed by CU, not just a "likely". As such, all the confirmed socks' edits may be treated as this editor's, and you get gems such as . Bringing up sockpuppetry is perfectly relevant when discussing the history, especially with a CU confirmed set of socks, which means that the accounts belong to one person. It's apparent to me that LarryTr7 is going to keep popping up, just when it seems the battles have died down, to relight the fires (so to speak... why am I being poetic? :D) and the user is not a benefit to the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence of socking after 13 March? (If yes, it should be added to the existing SPI.) NE Ent 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not to my knowledge, and there doesn't need to be. I think you're missing the point; CU confirmed socks' edits should be treated alongside the master's edits, especially when they're one and the same format. Even aside from the sockpuppeting, we've got an SPA with an agenda that violates BLP, almost all of their edits are POV-pushing, if not downright unacceptable, so they don't benefit the encyclopedia and should not be able to remain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ent, if the events were unrelated, I would agree, but they are actually all acts in the same play, all connected to the same problem, all indicating a singular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what title to put here

Hello. I am largely unfamiliar with administrative processes on wikipedia, though I am a longtime editor, so please assume good faith if I say something erroneous.

This all started with me Boldly removing content which did not meet wikipedia's criteria for RS. Sonicyouth86 demanded that I reach consensus before making edits, which is not part of wikipedia policy WP:EDITCONCENSUS. He then accused me of "arbitrary removals of people's comments ".

1. In the first case, I removed a small section of South19's comment, in which he referred to a suicide victim as a domestic terrorist, in violation of WP:BDP. I made the edit as transparent as possible, inserting red text in brackets that I had redacted it for violating WP:BDP, and by leaving a message on South19's talk page . My comment was arguably uncivil, though I wonder what sort of reaction South19 expected when calling a suicide victim a terrorist. I quickly struck out the contentious part of my comment
2. In the second case, I wasn't arbitrarily removing anything. I was attempting to delete a section I had accidentally duplicated, when attempting to refactor the talk page. It just so happened that in the time between duplication and my deletion, Sonicyouth86 had posted a single comment, which I then deleted and re-deleted without knowing.

Initial argument and confusion on my part

Now, in that context, I also didn't closely look at who's username I was responding to, assuming that it was South19 complaining about me editing his terrorism statement, since that was the only comment I was aware I had removed. At the time, there was a large amount of editing on the talk page, and I kept running into edit conflicts, so I did not take the time to carefully read nor carefully reply as I normally would. Here is how I responded Insinuating that Sonicyouth86 is dense was due to my misunderstanding, in thinking that he was South19 and really trying to put up an argument that calling someone a domestic terrorist isn't a violation of WP:BDP. I was also responding to his incredulity regarding my edits, in calling them arbitrary, when they most certainly were not, and in demanding that I adhere to his personal editing rules. I would hope that a reasonable observer understands that I had good reasons for both of my edits, though one had unintended consequences, and that I was following WP:BOLD and WP:Consensus in edits to the actual article. A reasonable observer should also see that I should not have called him dense. I take responsibility for that, and I almost immediately redacted it, as well: . WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is the relevant policy for properly retracting uncivil statements.

Escalation to ANI

Now, Sonicyouth86 immediately took the matter to ANI . He claimed that I had been warned by two seperate editors (himself and User:Slp1), when slp1 had in fact been the editor involved in a small revert war over the duplicate section, which I admitted my error to immediately upon realising it. I don't think Slp1 was complaining that I was deleting Sonicyouth86's comments, but that I was deleting the entire duplicate section, and I think he quickly realised why I was removing the section. I replied to him saying that. Sonicyouth86 then claimed that I "deleted comments by User:South19 because you dislike to his opinions . "People like you disgust me", that's what you wrote as an explanation why you removed his comments.", which is not true. I deleted it because he violated WP:BDP, which Sonicyouth86 was well aware of, because I said that exact thing in the edit summary, in the replacement text of the comment, and on South19's talk page. Sonicyouth86, knowing full well this fact, decided to frame it as me POV pushing by deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. That, itself, is a violation of WP:Civil section "2.(d). Lying" and "2.(e). quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;".

My attempts to explain myself and resolve the dispute

I responded to his post on ANI by attempting to clear up all of the confusion, in a civil manner. He took offense to me saying he was confused, which I don't really see how it's an insult to say that someone doesn't have all the facts. It was then, at the first mention that I had been uncivil, that I agreed to and promptly stuck out the edits which Sonicyouth86 had identified as being uncivil. Does that mean I'm absolved of all wrongdoing? No, not at all. It does show that I admitted I was wrong and wanted to reconcile. I also immediately posted this apology to Sonicyouth86's talk page, attempting to explain my actions and defuse the situation. Sonicyouth86 immediately deleted my apology and continued to argue with me. I then admitted my error on AN/I , in mixing up who I was talking to, and that that might explain why I reacted so strongly to Sonicyouth86's rebukes, since I thought he was the one who had called someone a terrorist.

Sonicyouth86 then reiterated that I had acted uncivilly, which I had both admitted to, apologized for, and redacted. I don't know why he continued to push that point when it was already settled. Based off of his edit summary, I think it's safe to assume he wanted to "teach me a lesson".

Here was my final response: before being topic banned by User:TParis. I still stand by what I said. South19 should be ashamed of what he said. South19 should apologize and redact his statements. It is reprehensible to say such a thing about another person. It is a violation of wikipedia policy. WP:Civil says nothing about calling out a person's behavior for what it is, but it does say something about the type of comment South19 left originally, which started this whole ordeal. Here is my complete justification for my first edit: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -WP:BLP TParis told me that I should have brought the violation to his attention instead of editing South19's comment, which contradicts this very clear policy.

Topic Ban appeal and continued WP:Harassment by sonicyouth86

The reason TParis provided for the topic ban was such: "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive. In the future, when you feel there is a violation of WP:BDP to address, feel free to take the issue up to myself or another uninvolved administrator." Since I did neither in the manner that he understood me as having done, I argue that this ban was placed erroneously and should be removed. I have also posted an apology for my behavior to both Sonicyouth86's talk page and to TParis's talk page . Sonicyouth86 proceeded to delete that apology immediately, and continue to attack me, adding unnecessary confusion to an already confusing AN/I discussion by repeatedly demanding that other editors discard good faith assumptions . He then went on to post on my talk page , showing that he still fails to Misplaced Pages:Forgive_and_forget and continues to push the same tired points which have already been discussed in great detail. He's essentially beating a dead horse hoping candy will fall out. The threat to take me to AN/I (when we're already there?) was a cute touch. So, here I am, taking this to AN/I, so that I have a chance to take the time to fully explain my action and the series of events that led to the situation we have now.

Discussion of AN/I topic this morning, in which I accidentally violated the topic ban due to my own confusion

Also, relevant reading might be the above AN/I topic from earlier today. As I said numerous times, though Sonicyouth86 repeatedly denies I could be telling the truth, I did not understand the nature of a ban on wikipedia. In every other sphere, a ban is an enforced ban from editing content. As I was still able to edit the page I was supposedly banned from, I was very confused. Because TParis was inconsistent in notifying me of the ban, and because I had posted on his talk page asking him to reconsider, I incorrectly believed that he must have either decided not to ban me, or had removed the ban. I checked my block log, and seeing that it was empty, made the assumption that he had decided not to follow through with banning. Considering that I made two edits, one to show that I was not banned (lol oops) and another under the assumption that I was not banned, and that Sonicyouth86 was just trying to stir up trouble, I think it's hardly fair to impose further punishment on me for such a thing, especially considering I immediately reverted the edits when it became clear to me that I was in fact not allowed to have done that. Please take into account the fact that I have been an editor for many years, yes, but that I have never been involved with administrative action until very recently, and am still pretty unfamiliar with it. I am also unfamiliar with the pace of some of these more contentious articles, and I am unfamiliar with some of the distinctions between how editors in the social sciences expect others to act and how hard scientists (which I am) expect others to act.

Also, I have made this case to WP:AE to appeal the ban, and they redirected me here. Rgambord (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm gonna respond to this before someone in a crabby mood does. Currently several of your diffs are incorrect (probably just misadventures in copy-pasting), and there are several things you reference that you don't link to any diffs for. While a lengthy ANI post is usually a bad idea, I understand it's your first time posting here, and would strongly encourage other editors to not respond to this with a simple "TL;DR" or the ever-ridiculous "massive wall of text—block nom". I, for one, would happily read through all this, but at the moment it's too hard to tell what you're talking about. I'd also suggest that if you can find any way to make your post a bit shorter, you do so. Thanks. — PinkAmpers& 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into the diff issues and try to shorten things. I know it's a lot of text, but it's a big complicated scenario full of misunderstandings and animosity that all needs to be addressed, IMO. I ask that commenting is refrained until I have fixed the diffs. Thanks. !Rgambord (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found one diff that was incorrect. The others seem to work for me? A couple links are to sections on old revisions of pages so that it's easy to see the whole discussion as it progressed. Hopefully this is ok? If I'm still missing something please point it out and I'll fix it as best I can. I've added section headers to divide up the text into more comprehensible chunks. Hopefully this helps. I don't want to get TL;DR! Thanks again. Rgambord (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rgambord didn't just merge section on Talk:Men's rights movement. He also refactored comments of editors he was in a dispute with and deleted others' comments so that I had to restore them. He also removed sections .
  Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy states that any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I made an ANI thread on April 23 about Rgambord's personal attacks against editors involved in the men's rights movement article including "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" and "you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you disgust me." Other instances of personal attacks and/or incivility on April 23 include in addition to assumptions of bad faith .
  Today Rgambord violated his topic or article ban twice and continues to accuse me and others of wrongdoing, including harassment and erroneous admin actions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was not involved in a dispute with the editor who's comment I edited as per wikipedia policy WP:BDP, which I stated many, many times, and you continue to post boldfaced lies about me to the contrary and it's a very clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Not once did I comment in that section, yet you continue to lie saying I was in a dispute with him. You are using the fact that I deleted a section which I created to request that the talk page be cleaned up, as evidence of me making disruptive edits, even though that makes no reasonable sense to anyone except you. You are a liar. you are lying. You have been caught lying. I have pointed it out multiple times that you are not telling the truth. How many different ways do I need to say this before admins take appropriate action? You are now harassing me. Did you even bother to read the post that I made? Or did you just copy and paste the same thing, as you've been doing this entire time? How many times can you beat a dead horse before it's dead? You have not responded AT ALL to any attempts I have made to reconcile. You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta. I may be sanctioned for this comment, so be it. I want nothing to do with a place that supports "contributors" like yourself. Rgambord (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sonicyouth is also disingenuously accusing me of violating my ban when everyone else can apparently see that I made a mistake, which I even addressed in this post, yet he somehow failed to respond to. This guy is simply making things up and twisting the evidence to paint me as a bad guy. I have done nothing to deserve that sort of treatment. I am being bullied and I am being harassed. Again, he's violating sections 2.d and 2.e of WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You violated your topic ban twice today. The diff links show that you violated your topic ban. The only question is whether you are experienced enough – you have stated on mutiple occasions that you've been an editor for many years – to know that you are not allowed to edit an article and its talk page if you are told by an administrator on your talk page that you are banned from editing the article and its talk page. Nothing about this simple chain of events – you were banned, your were informed that you were banned, you edited the article and talk page although you were banned – involves making things up. I provided diff links that you refactored and removed a comment and deleted a section on the mrm talk page. Prior to that you argued that the SPLC criticism should be removed and South19 disagreed with you (see talk "Is this section really necessary?") and you disagreed with me on various issues. You removed my comment and altered Soouth19's comment and the patrolling admin saw that as altering comments by users' you were in a dispute with.
I believe that it is quite obvious who is being abused. "You are a liar", "You are now harassing me", "You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta." I'll just add that to your other personal attacks including "jerk" , "People like you disgust me" and "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Provide the diff which you think proves I was involved in an argument with this editor. Could it perhaps be that upon going in to merge the three sections, I saw his top comment, in which he called someone a goddamn domestic terrorist, and corrected the material as it violates wikipedia policy which DEMANDS ITS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL. END OF STORY. PERIOD. NADA. I don't need to ask an admin. I don't need to ask you. I need to delete the material. I am objectively right that it violates WP:BLP, and so far NO ONE has argued that it does not and I was in the wrong in removing it. Provide an argument for WHY THAT EDIT VIOLATES SOME POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA. SHOW PROOF. Why are you defending those comments? Why are you defending South19's behavior? Why am I the bad person, when I'm not running around calling people terrorists. I ask again, did YOU MISS THAT PART? WHERE HE CALLS THE MAN A TERRORIST. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF COMMENT AND THE SORT OF ATMOSPHERE IT CREATES ON WIKIPEDIA? That is the atmosphere you are arguing to perpetuate.

So far, your entire argument has rested on the premise that I removed his comment due to a disagreement (false). That my reasoning was because he "disgusts me" (false -- the reasoning was provided 3 different places). That I maliciously removed sections on the talk page (false -- that was my own section, which had been created by me to request someone clean up the talk page. Do you think that if I was so skilled at talk page cleanup that I would have requested that someone else did it? Is it not such a stretch that given my lack of skill, that I would have deleted it, not thinking it particularly important to archive?). That I maliciously removed your comments from the page because I was in a disagreement with you (False -- we both know that was accidental, and I have explained myself numerous times, yet you persist in your claims).

Personal attacks: do you understand that lying about what I did, what my actions were, and failing to assume good faith, all of which you have done, are all violations of wikipedia policy which should require your removal from the articles in question? Do you you understand that following me around to different pages and constantly pushing for my punishment especially with a bunch of made up non-issues clearly trying to frame me as some horrible vandal IS harassment? Do you have some sort of obsession with me? I have tried to apologize on numerous occasions, but that would be too easy, right? Yes, I should not have called south19 disgusting, even though he is. I should not have called you dense, though everything you have posted tells me you are. I should not have called TParis a jerk, cause I was pissed off at the time. The really interesting thing here is that as of now, South19 has not been reprimanded for calling this man a terrorist. You've managed to completely distract everyone from the real issue here, which is South19's behavior. My response to it was not savory, but I did not run around calling people terrorists.

Now, I have wasted the better part of a day on this bullshit. And that is, in no uncertain terms, what it is. I am done trying to defend myself; I am done trying to stay civil with you, because insults and swearing were invented to express emotions, and that's what I am going to use them for. You are the greatest troll I have ever seen. Bravo. I come on here for fun because I am interested in the subjects and what better way to become better acquainted with them than through editing an encyclopedia on them. I do not come in here to see people calling other people terrorists because they disagree with their actions. I do not come in here to spend all of my time on ANI like I have (which seems to be your favorite fucking thing). I come in here to collaborate with other people. I neuter my language by imagining I am talking to a person face to face. In no uncertain terms, I held back a lot of negative comments for South19 and for the type of environment people like him create on wikipedia, and if we had spoken face to face, I would have said exactly what I posted on his talk page. I stand by what I said. South19 disgusts me, and should be ashamed of himself. So, I am done. You win. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The real issue is that you continue to personally attack editors, that you violated your article ban twice today, got caught, and started this thread to argue that you are the wronged party because I had the audacity to point out your ban and your behavior that led up to it. Yes, you called TParis a "jerk", you said repeatedly that people like User:South19 disgust you, you called me all the screw-ups under the sun – "You are the greatest troll I have ever seen" and "You are a liar" deserve extra-extra-special mention to show the originality of the insults – and you continue to accuse me of this and that (e.g., harassment, abuse, attacks, that I called you a "vandal", and what not) without providing any evidence in the form of diff links. Your violations of WP:NPA are so extreme as to be comical and I assume that that's the reason why you haven't been sanctioned yet.
I agree that you have wasted people's time with the attempt to get your ban rescinded, your denial that you are article banned, and this thread. Not to mention your verbose commentary on my and others' alleged character flaws and intellectual shortcomings. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones and Eugene Plotkin

Changed header from "User Smallbones is Blocking any Attempts to Modify an Article" for neutrality; as the top of the page says, "New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral". Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones has blocked any attempts to make edits or revisions to the article concerning Eugene Plotkin. Most recently, he has taken my significant revision of the article, including an expansion of scope, an addition of multiple new references, a streamlining of the writing, an incorporation of a broader NPOV, and he has rolled back all of those changes. A reading of the Talk Pages shows that user Smallbones has treated this article as Smallbones' private domain, aggressively rolling back any changes made to the article over many months. Smallbones has bullied any editors making changes on the article's Talk pages. An administrator's intervention would be greatly appreciated. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to notify Smallbones (I have done this for you). Also their most recent edit was reverting your page move, while WP:BOLD they are within their right to revert and open discussion. There also seems to be a big issue with sock puppets on this article. I suggest you try to discuss more on the talk page. Mike (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not notifying Smallbones sooner. I was planning on doing that. Thank you for making the notification.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Plotkin is notable for nothing but his involvement in an insider trading scheme, along with other individuals. There can be no justification whatsoever for a 'biography', but no article on the scheme. Either the scheme meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, or nothing does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say for now that I won't be prepared for a careful detailed discussion of this case for a few days. Everything I say here is just what I recall without checking diffs, etc. There are some quite delicate issues here that are difficult to discuss, e.g. BLP and OTRS issues. I'll just say for now that:

• About 5 years ago I wrote most of the Eugene Plotkin article based on a massive amount of material - articles in all the best financial sources from 3 or 4 continents.
• Almost all the info back then was on Plotkin with little or nothing on the other guy (There are also 4-5 "little fish" in the scheme, but these folks don't need to be highlighted). The amount of new info may have changed relatively but there are not so many new sources around, except perhaps the "American Greed" episode on the scandal which is a bit flamboyant and is perhaps a border-line reliable source.
• Near a fairly easily identifiable date, some very strange things began happening with the article, involving a whole flock of sockpuppets. The first adventure involved about 80% of the content and sources being deleted and then having the article nominated for deletion.
• On a fairly regular basis strange things keep on happening to the article.
• A request was made through OTRS about the article. I believe the thrust of the complaint was that Plotkin didn't plead guilty to many of the things the article said he did. A quick check of the press release issued by the *Federal Court* showed that he did plead guilty to everything I was asked about. The OTRS volunteer quietly disappeared.
• There are some incredibly bizarre aspects of this case that I haven't highlighted in the article and don't see any need to, e.g. the stripper scheme. The grand juror scheme should probably be highlighted as it seems to be a first in insider trading - but - if I remember this correctly - the juror turned state's evidence and got off with probation, and Plotkin only pled guilty to something related to what appears to be part of that scheme. Info on that part of the scheme is fairly hard to get. The really bizarre part is the movie that those convicted made before getting caught.
• The most believable criticism that I have heard of the article during these regular strange periods is that this is about a single event - after all, only one trial for Plotkin - just one scheme. Well actually not - there were convictions on about 25 individual stocks spread out over a year's trading, multiple schemes, e.g. trading on pre-publication info and the schemes mentioned above.

Frankly, I feel a bit constrained discussing this at all in public - the sources speak for themselves (when not removed!). Is there a way to have a private hearing on this, short of the Arb Committee. Actually I'd be willing to have it go to the Arb Committee if we could get a final ruling, and I wouldn't have to deal with it every 6 months.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Arb Committee doesn't decide content disputes. Can you explain why we have an article supposedly about Plotkin, rather than about an insider trading scheme involving multiple individuals - the one thing that Plotkin is supposedly notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that this has died down, but the article refers to both and it's at the name of one of them. I say either move the page to Eugene Plotkin and David Pajčin (or something else! Goldman Sachs insider trading controversy is not unreasonable) or separate the two articles - I'm quite happy to do either, but I want consensus one way or another before I do anything.--Launchballer 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones makes a number of factual errors in his discussion of the article above. The Grand Juror that he notes got off with probation is Jason Smith, who actually received 33 months for his involvement. When the case initially broke in the news in 2005, it focused on Pajcin and his aunt. There were multiple news stories at the time, which are easily accessible via a simple Google search. Plotkin did not appear until April of 2006, when he was arrested. Coverage at that time centered on not only Plotkin, but also Shpigelman. In any event, whether or not there are bizarre components to this article's history or its story is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here. Factchecker25 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason the article was originally written about Plotkin was because all the information from reliables sources was about Plotkin. The other guy was just a shadowy figure who appeared in passing in the multitude of reliable sources. There may be better information now, but I haven't seen it. So-called Factchecker hasn't offered any good sources as far as I can tell - but what he seems to have done is put in vague, undocumented accusations against the other guy and in the process hide or confuse the documented facts (that Plotkin pled guilty to, or appeared in the Wall Street Journal together with other sources such as the Financial Times and New York Times, etc.) I frankly don't have anything to say about the other guy - most of what Factchecker says could be made up as far as I can tell. Before you start an article entitled "Joe X and Bob Y" please make sure you have documented facts and you've checked them yourself personally. If it turns out to be then case that the other guy has as much to do with the case, then please go ahead and write it. I certainly haven't seen anything that says they got equal sentences.

As far as a Z company insider trading conspiracy I don't think that would work because the perhaps 2.5 guys who seemed to have run it, seem to have worked for at least 4 companies. Also note that it can't be named a "controversy", there's nothing controversial about their convictions, it was a conspiracy or perhaps a scheme. If you were to pick the most commonly used name - there's no true nifty name here - it would probably be "Plotkin's insider trading" or the "Underwear seamstress insider trading conspiracy". I'm very serious about the last, that little juicy detail seems to have caught everybody's imagination but nobody would actually publish that name (all the while emphasizing the not so important detail), so a catchy name was never thought up. I've asked Factchecker for a better name, but haven't seen one yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The name is irrelevant. Either the insider dealing scheme (which involved more than just Plotkin) was notable, in which case we should have an article on it, or it isn't, in which case we cannot have an article on Plotkin. This bogus 'biography' simply doesn't comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A note for those unfamiliar with the subject: the so called "other guy was just a shadowy figure" is David Pajčin, Plotkin's co-conspirator, who's trading first attracted the SEC's interest. It was the investigation of Pajčin that led them to Plotkin. Far from being a 'shadowy figure',Pajčin was central to the case. Furthermore, there are sources dating from 2006 which cover Pajčin's involvement perfectly well. Smallbones' arguments simply don't add up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy's being a bit grumpy here. I don't think there is any rule that says you have to have an article on the insider trading case before you can have an article on the insider trader. Michael Milkin and Ivan Boesky are handled by us under the person's name with no articles on either case. And yes, there were many other people involved in each of those cases. The weight that I put on the different people in the case reflects the weight of the sources I had when I wrote it. It would probably be slightly different now, but I'll say that "Eugene Plotkin" gets more than 2 times the google hits than "David Pajcin" and "Stanislav Shpigelman" gets almost none. We should just take this to the article's talk page. There's no great injustice or violation of the rules. There's just a convicted con man ... or two or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Before we "take this to the article's talk page", would you care to expand on why you accused Factchecker25 of having a "possible COI" in an edit summary? Given that Factchecker25 hadn't edited the article previously, it is difficult to see how you could have arrived at such a conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful when blocking

As per Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Orange_bar.2C_prominent_talk-page_notifications, the famous Orange Talk Page Notification Bar (tactfully and lovingly nicknamed the OBOD) has been deactivated. Until the issue is fixed next workweek (hopefully), I suggest that administrators be much gentler with good-faith editors that appear to be ignoring messages on their talk pages--they probably legitimately are not noticing them through no real fault of their own. My suggestion is, for the short term, to avoid blocking editors except where there is clear, outright vandalism or other evidence of outright bad faith. Red Slash 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea even with the orange bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although note that the bar is working for IPs. What does OBOD stand for, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange bar of Death. Tiderolls 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do have a suggestion, if community consensus is in favor, Writ Keeper wrote a script that can be installed in the common js page so it's re-enabled again.—cyberpower _Online 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC may as well close already. Even though it's only been four days, consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of restoring it, and I really can't see it swinging away from that stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that consensus is fine, but we are talking about the developers and the Foundation. They are not obligated to follow consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifying on ANI

With the new notifications system, all you have to do is mention them here to get their attention. Should we still notify users?—cyberpower _Online 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• We could mandate the linking of a user's name as an alternative.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI. When my name was mentioned here - and it was in the section header - the new system did not notify me. Also, as mentioned on several other message boards the new notification system is easy to miss (especially if someone were color blind) so I would suggest that we continue to notify users and IPs with a message on their talk page. It is a simple courtesy to perform. MarnetteD | Talk 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. NE Ent 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the talk page? I've had the same problem as Marnette; I've not yet gotten any notifications except for messages at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User conduct complaint - Sanctions Against Iran

I am seeking assistance and advice on how to deal with USER:KhabarNegar. I submitted this first as a dispute resolution request, but the request was closed by saying it was a conduct dispute.

Since that request is set to be archived, here is the full discussion:

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sanctions Against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is no single issue in dispute, but a seemingly unending series of issues, which will be evident by looking at the article's history and discussion page.

I have tried to edit the article so that it is factually correct, supported by reliable sources, and balanced. I have explained every edit in the description and often on the talk page. Though I have tried to meet KhabarNegar halfway and work with the valid substantive elements of his additions, he/she has repeatedly reverted my edits and insists on having every word exactly as he wants it. And he typically adds insult to injury by reverting my edits and then adding further dubious content.

I have the impression that few if any other editors look at this page or, if they do, they have given up because of the seemingly intractable dispute.

I also have the impression that KhabarNegar has limited English proficiency, as many of his/her edits and comments on the discussion page are ungrammatical and he/she often seems not to understand what I am saying.

Finally, i have the impression that he/she is motivated by a strong political bias - taking the side of Iran against the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve on the discussion page, to handle things step-by-step. For awhile it seemed like we were making progress, but the dispute has returned to a standoff.

How do you think we can help?

First, review the history and provide an independent view of the dispute. I hope you will conclude that KhabarNegar is being unreasonable, uncivil, and has violated Misplaced Pages standards of conduct, and I hope you will make this clear to him/her. Ultimately, if he/she refuses to budge, the only solution may be to block him from further edits.

Opening comments by KhabarNegar

Well, Above you see a 1754 character insults from first line till the last line without a single link of what is really going on.

FIRST OF ALL, the biggest lie he is telling is the last line which he is telling.

That is so unfortunate which instead of relying on the facts he makes this discussion USA Vs. Iran discussion, This points of view and injecting national patriotism in to the articles is I think the core problem that above user have,... & its obvious to anyone by using the last line he is trying to make a team to influence the article by his patriot views.

Mr. NPguy instead of insulting and trying to just put views of some current U.S administration foreign policies in to articles try to know the facts from reliable international sources.

If anyone see the history, you can see what he is doing, deleting the reliable sources for example like Al Jazeera & The Christian Science Monitor...KhabarNegar (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The exchange illustrates one aspect the conduct in question: verbal insults instead of substantive replies. If you look at the history of the article in question, you will see a certain amount of edit warring (in which I am not entirely blameless), but also that my efforts to reach a constructive compromise have been persistently rebuffed. Please advise. NPguy (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of PA/threats to block from user S.Rich

In response to a spurious public accusation of libel made against me by user CarolmooreDc, made on my talk page and the talk page for Hans Hermann Hoppe (the person I supposedly libeled), I wrote the following message(posted to my talk page and the Hoppe talk page):

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

USer S.Rich -- who has acted in an intimidating manner toward me, including making imputing bad faith and speculating on my motives without evidence, despite my being a noob, responded thusly --

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here and here: and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

His threats are unacceptable given that my comments constitute no personal attack. As can be seen, my words were solely focused on refuting a particular accusation. I ask that he be rebuked for his intimidating/harassing behavior against me, a noob someone who has been here for 17 days. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

17 days, and you're already making multiple postings to the admin boards? That's a new one. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic admin closes

Copied here from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

LFaraone, an admin, hasn't made a significant number of edits in about 4 years . Yet he has returned and started closing discussions where there are only a few comments.

In the article I nominated, based on policy and guidelines I can see no justification for closing that discussion as keep, rather than relisting for more input Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(3rd_nomination). The justification made here: User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD seems, quite frankly, a bit bizarre. Especially considering that when he says "User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that", even though Dricherby panned Phraedrus's reasons; what consensus was he reading? If this was an isolated case I would take it to deletion review, but there appear to be many other discussions closed by the now-active editor which I think are problematic.

Other examples:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Powerking One comment of "Per nom" and it was deleted
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Writopia_Lab One comment which says they have press coverage and links to their page resulted in a keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments No comments actually address notability, yet it was kept
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Vince_Conti One comment, said they couldn't find sources, was deleted

This list is not an exhaustive one, I only selected a minimum number for demonstration. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, when editors brought up closings they felt were incorrect, I have occasionally revised the outcome. However, I believe in general that my actions in interpreting consensus are reasonable and fall within the realm of administrative discretion. If you have issues with specific deletion discussions, couldn't you have otherwise resolved them amicably by bringing them up at deletion review? I disagree that my gap in editing indicates, as you said on your talk page, being "out of touch" with policy, and stand by these closures. LFaraone 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a large amount of problematic closes; and it would be non-trivial to bring them all to deletion review.

Many are where there is little input but they are closed, here are some more examples:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Courchaine_(ice_hockey_b._1989)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Smith_(Charity_CEO): one comment
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/A_Wolf_At_Your_Door_Records: one comment, basically a per nom, was deleted
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Saving_Aimee_(3rd_nomination) I fail to see the consensus.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

David Talbott close seems to reflect consensus. NE Ent 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I looked through the examples here, which I assume are the "worst of the worst". Some were relisted twice, others once. I also think it was kind of quick to bring it here. We can debate each close individually at WP:DRV but from what I see, the main problem was low participation, even after relisting. In this one, the nomination was weak, this didn't have a single keep, this one didn't have a delete, etc. I don't see abuse nor obviously bad judgement. I do think that DRV would have been the better venue. Some AFDs just don't get any attention, which can be evidenced by at least one of the examples being relisted twice. I don't agree that we should run every AFD until it gets $x votes, which is the only other alternative. And the David Talbott article you nominated? This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you are telling me, that in your opinion: this is an appropriate close? Closing with keep or delete when there was a lack of participation is bad judgement, if there isn't enough participation we have "no consensus" or relisting.Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments did have a delete; the nom and noone addressed the points he raised. Also with the Talbott article, saying that discussions years ago were closed keep and that means the current case is justified is rather strange justification. Read the actual keep arguments; one hints at possible reviews of a book, one of the keeps makes irrelevant points that the first keep voter countered as well, and the third keep voter said he would have voted delete if this wasn't a third nomination. These aren't the worst of the worst, since I didn't look through all their recent closes. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie on this. The level of participation and the number of keep "votes" should have nothing at all to do with the closing decision. An AfD is not a vote! That is a core Misplaced Pages policy. AfDs should be closed with reference to the stated policy positions, not the popularity of the subject. Policy should always triumph over votes or sentiments. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be an anarchy, but anarchy is surely the result when policy is thrown out the window. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with a slight clarification that if the participation is very low, people can't generally gauge the general consensus, and it should probably be relisted, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

InconvenientCritic not here to contribute

Could an admin please block InconvenientCritic (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? He does not seem to be interested in helping construct the encyclopedia, and in fact seems just to be here to try to stir up trouble on talk pages, as Tarc points out. If InconvenientCritic does want the help with the encyclopedia, by all means we should let him. But we don't need more people here to just create more drama. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to propose a community ban WP:AN is usaully the place to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User CarolMooreDC making false accusations of libel/threats of banning

I hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Misplaced Pages (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)

Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.

Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.

Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems it wasn't just your change of the title, you added the entire section which does not have adequate sourcing: . CarolMooreDC's accusation of libel, unless I am mistaken, seems to fall afoul of WP:NLT. That doesn't mean the text in the article should not have not been removed, which it should be per WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My edits you refer to (from April 17-18th) definitely should have been removed. But please note that that was my first/second day on Misplaced Pages, when I was not yet appraised to WP rules such as WP:OR and WP:SYN. Also note that she was accusing me of libel for changes I made related to the title I added yesterday, not for the older stuff. I appreciate your remarks agreeing that Carol violates WP:BLP WP:NLT. Steeletrap (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You misread what I said, I did not agree that Carol violated WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke, and meant to say: "I appreciate your agreeing that Carol violated WP:NLT." I encourage anyone to strike my previous comment through to avoid confusion (I don't know how). Steeletrap (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can do that yourself using <s> and </s>. NE Ent 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOLT would apply in this case, I think, negating the perceived spuriousness of the libel threat. I think both of you need to take a step back from the article; I'm getting a sense there are issues of WP:OWN here.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the charge should be carefully evaluated and I encourage everyone to read the edits I made to the page to verify that they match my characterization of it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• To make a long story short, I've been having a problem with New User:SteeleTrap's admitted strongly negative POV on WP:Biographies of Living Persons of various individuals involved with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute expressed through unbalanced editing and negative comments about them on talk pages. He admitted his biases at User_talk:Steeletrap#Clarification_on_thesis (from this diff on). And I still do wonder if he's told the adviser to his MBA thesis what a great job he's done on wikipedia working on their shared POV on these individuals.
• I have been thinking of making a report to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about all his negative POV edits to a number of related WP:BLPs, including that "final straw" one which I think is the kind of "libel" we are supposed to remove immediately and tell people not to engage in, which was my intent. So I did write at this diff which is the talk page section User_talk:Steeletrap#Libelous_edits_on_Hans-Herman_Hoppe. It didn't occur to me anyone would take it as a legal threat since I can't sue him for libeling someone else.
• But I did write: As I wrote above: "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (To clarify some of language in arbitration link: they don't usually go straight to a ban, unless for example you keep reverting libelous material; they would explain WP:BLP policy, watch you and even give you some mentorship; maybe give you blocks a bit quicker if you do something naughty; and if you don't improve your behavior, then they'll consider topic bans.)
• Anyway, I do have a feeling he has crossed the line a few times where he would get a stern talking to from and admin and he seemed to have no interest in changing his behavior, so I felt a stern warning was in order. I have a feeling people don't want to see all the BLP-related diffs in the here and now and I'd prefer not to have to provide them. Instead User:Steeletrap should read WP:BLP carefully and step back from articles where his POV is so strong he just is becoming disruptive. I'm not the only one to tell him that, if you look at his talk page and that of articles he's worked on. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"...one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Misplaced Pages"

Jeppiz made the following comment—

• DanielTom is one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Misplaced Pages.

Is that a personal attack? If not, then I don't know what is. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

you have wrongly been accusing me of abuse and harassment...are you sure you want to open this can of worms? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards